Girlsdoporn.com lawsuit/declaring bankruptcy

[SlickyBoy]

The trouble with that is A) there are no profits to disgorge, and B) unlike a door to door unsolicited sales to unsuspecting old people, these girls were found after putting themselves out there on CL looking for modeling gigs. They took the first steps.

Add this to their open declarations on camera about what they were about to do in each scene (take the D), and the innocent victim theory of the case will completely unravel.

Hence, I'm not as optimistic that any of the girls have a chance of winning even under the best subjective circumstances. Realistically they probably know this now, after hiring lawyers who gave them a reality check. Alas, they still figure if they don't at least try to present a public case of them being victims, they'll just look like bigger whores than they already are when it comes to bagging Mr. Beta Bux in a few years.

Watch this space to see how many of them wind up in a mega church right around their 33rd birthday.

 

[lavidaloca]

The trouble with that is A) there are no profits to disgorge, and B) unlike a door to door unsolicited sales to unsuspecting old people, these girls were found after putting themselves out there on CL looking for modeling gigs. They took the first steps.

Add this to their open declarations on camera about what they were about to do in each scene (take the D), and the innocent victim theory of the case will completely unravel.

Hence, I'm not as optimistic that any of the girls have a chance of winning even under the best subjective circumstances. Realistically they probably know this now, after hiring lawyers who gave them a reality check.

You are missing the point.

If I run a coffee business and I sell the rights to my coffee but you are only allowed to sell it in Delaware yet you go and sell it in Maryland, Cleveland, Baltimore etc then you are in blatant breach of contract.

In this case because they probably signed a contract that wasn't in line with the verbal representations then it will probably be argued as misrepresentation. (I'm not familiar with US Law or the terms that they will use)

There are absolutely profits to disgorge. Somewhere earlier it was said that one of the owners was making $60,000 a month. Its hard to figure out how exactly to divvy it up but a simple way would be total profits / # of episodes. The court and experts would have to determine that.

These girls knew they were having sex on camera. That isn't the debate. The debate relates to the distribution, misrepresentations, warranties and likely as to whether the contracts were signed under duress or under the influence.

If this was two 45 year old experienced business owners arguing about a contract then the court would probably not have as much sympathy. The standard and expectation regarding their ability to review a deal is much higher than one involving an 18 year old college student.

One of the cases involving disgorgement involved an Intelligence offer. I believe what he did was sell a book based on intelligence he agreed not to distribute. All profits were disgorged. (This is based on memory as I read the case many years ago) That isn't so different than what happened here.

The average person hasn't seen complex contracts before. I have had clients come in with contracts so complicated that I had to read them a half dozen times to have any clue what was going on. There is 0 chance my client would've understand it in entirety.

So while you assume it was very obvious what the contract said it may have very well been extremely convoluted. The contract probably didnt say in big print on the front page that We will be distributing this video online on GDP website to anyone paying a fee. It more likely read something like you agree to give up all rights to the recording(s) to GDP to use the materials as they deem fit. Again for a business person that triggers alarms. For an 18 year old college student who has a guy telling her what it will be used for it probably doesn't.

Modelling vs sex on camera are entirely different things. GDP reached out to them and proposed a different type of work.

This raises the question as to whether there were misrepresentations / warranties etc.In the end like any many cases there will probably be a settlement complete with an NDA so we will never know what happened.

 

[SlickyBoy]

OJ Simpson was sued for wrongful death (a civil suit in the US; not sure about Canada). The first thing he did was move do FL and declare bankruptcy.* OJ's house was protected under the homestead exemption provisions in FL (100% of the value), as was his $200k a year NFL pension. Fucked up as it was, nothing remained that was reachable for Ron Goldman's family to collect.

Here, we have a contract case involving dumb yet legally competent plaintiffs who expect to collect from a defendant *legal entity.*

That legal entity, from what I gather, declared bankruptcy. It will be up to the court to determine the legitimacy of the legal entity but barring commingling of funds or other basis for piercing the veil of corporate shielding, these guys are probably in the clear in terms of massive monetary judgements, no matter what you and I think about them.

If the contract itself was unconscionable or of the - ahem - "models" - can *prove* duress in signing the contracts, then they may get some headway. Even then they still lose in terms of monetary gain.


*The laws changed at the federal level to prevent what he did there, but the lesson is the same - bankruptcy of a business entity does not mean the plaintiffs can automatically recover from the individuals who created the entity.

 

[lavidaloca]

*The laws changed at the federal level to prevent what he did there, but the lesson is the same - bankruptcy of a business entity does not mean the plaintiffs can automatically recover from the individuals who created the entity.

I actually have experience in that area.

What happens is the corporate funds are moved then bankruptcy is declared. Thats exactly the type of scenario where the veil would likely be pierced. A common way people try to do it is by transferring their house / property to their wife.

You can't just remove all the funds from a business and then declare bankruptcy and skirt free. The veil would then likely be pierced.

If the business is indeed legitimately bankrupt thats a different story all together.

I don't know in the US what types of proof or ways there are to pierce the corporate veil. I suspect fraud would likely be one way though I don't know whether this case will meet the threshold required. (I have no idea the threshold required in the US) I suspect its harder to prove and requires a higher threshold then a misrepresentation case though.

"When they arrived at the hotel, the women say they were given drugs and alcohol.

“We smoked and we drank from the second we got to the [location] until after we stopped shooting,” one of the women told NBC7 Investigates."

Before the video shoot started, the women said they were given a contract to sign with only minutes to review it ahead of time.

“The contract was the size of a good book and they rushed me through it,” said one woman in an interview. “They did not let me look at it for more than five minutes because they kept rushing me, saying, 'We're out of time, we're out of time.'”

First of all given the size and nature of the contract any legitimate party would suggest they get independent legal advice. Secondly this is blatantly going to be contrary to the law.

"The trial was set for March 8, 2018, but on the day the judge issued a tentative ruling finding merit to the claims that the men engaged in “malice, fraud or oppression,” Pratt filed for bankruptcy. The case has since been put on hold. "

Fraud and oppression I suspect both are ways of piercing the corporate veil. (Not a US Lawyer though so can't say with certainty)

 

[ruuuuuushvee]

*The laws changed at the federal level to prevent what he did there, but the lesson is the same - bankruptcy of a business entity does not mean the plaintiffs can automatically recover from the individuals who created the entity.

I actually have experience in that area.

What happens is the corporate funds are moved then bankruptcy is declared. Thats exactly the type of scenario where the veil would likely be pierced. A common way people try to do it is by transferring their house / property to their wife.

You can't just remove all the funds from a business and then declare bankruptcy and skirt free. The veil would then likely be pierced.

If the business is indeed legitimately bankrupt thats a different story all together.

I don't know in the US what types of proof or ways there are to pierce the corporate veil. I suspect fraud would likely be one way though I don't know whether this case will meet the threshold required. (I have no idea the threshold required in the US) I suspect its harder to prove and requires a higher threshold then a misrepresentation case though.

What if all their assets are offshore, out of the reach of US jurisdiction? Something like a Cook Islands Trust?

 

[The Wire]

Yeah, well, if they lose it won't be because the judge feels sympathy. This isn't a sexual assault case, it's a contract case. Nobody is going to jail and even monetary awards are doubtful since the company is declaring bankruptcy. Since the bulk of the case is about what shortcomings in pay (peanuts) and punitive damages (most of the monetary claim), this thing is dead before it even starts, in terms of remedies.

You forget that Cali-pornia is the same place that produces the industry itself. They supposedly sympathetic courts and legislators don't even legally require STD testing of, the uh... "actors" (prostitutes). Barring adequate, admissible evidence of unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendants, it's going nowhere.

As far as sympathy goes I don't think thats a slam dunk for the defense like you say it is. I understand it's produced in California but that doesn't indicate how a judge in the county of San Diego is going to handle this case.

The defendants in this case are as follows;


GIRLSDOPORN.COM, a business organization
MICHAEL J. PRATT, an individual
ANDRE GARCIA, an individual
MATTHEW WOLFE, an individual
BLL MEDIA, INC., a California corporation
BLL MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
EG PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California corporation
M1M MEDIA, LLC, a California limited liability company
BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC., a business organization
OH WELL MEDIA LIMITED, a business organization
MERRO MEDIA, INC., a California corporation
MERRO MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;

 

[SlickyBoy]

True enough, it is not a slam dunk - nothing is. But I see just three individuals. The rest, entities since declared bankrupt.

What are the chances those three guys are going to be able to pay $500k to each one of these broads, as I recall is sought in the complaint?


As for moving the assets, that is a question that will come up during bankruptcy. If they did move assets in anticipation of bankruptcy, that would be a fraudulent transfer and the assets would be reachable.

Realistically, if they moved it to the Cook Islands and then to somewhere else, good luck. Not legal but we are talking about scumbags here. But this is all speculation - how much of that money was already blown on bottle service and blow by now?

 

[The Wire]

So while you assume it was very obvious what the contract said it may have very well been extremely convoluted. The contract probably didnt say in big print on the front page that We will be distributing this video online on GDP website to anyone paying a fee. It more likely read something like you agree to give up all rights to the recording(s) to GDP to use the materials as they deem fit. Again for a business person that triggers alarms. For an 18 year old college student who has a guy telling her what it will be used for it probably doesn't.

As far as I can tell they didn't sign a contract to appear on girlsdoporn but they signed a large contract that had language in it for the pornographic videos to be used in any manner the producer wished to use them.

From what I can tell from the case the guys from girlsdoporn do not have any evidence what so ever that the girls knew this was for that website. The plaintiffs have evidence showing misrepresentation occurred such as reference girls being paid money to give false referrals to the women https://drive.google.com/file/d/15N-RymJ...NOuGB/view

The got text messages from the reference girls paid by and instructed by the girlsdoporn staff. https://media.nbcsandiego.com/images/987*1283/Ref+Girl+Text+4.png https://media.nbcsandiego.com/images/987*1283/Ref+Girl+Text+5.png

 

[lavidaloca]

A judgement in fraud doesn't expire on bankruptcy typically. So lets say these guys go work an office job and get paid 60k a year then it seems reasonable their wages could be garnished. Again I don't know the US law specifics or how the case was pleaded.

Overseas trusts and enforcing out of country judgements is a matter in itself.

Judgements are often difficult to collect. The overseas hidden trusts and things like those are blown way out of proportion. While its possible they did this frankly it's unlikely. The panama papers are what blew this out of proportion. It's rare. I've never met anyone who did that in my time in the law.

I have no respect for outright dishonesty which it appears these guys demonstrated. It would appear that in order to make a quick buck they knowingly prayed on and manipulated young girls based on the evidence provided. Read the article as to all the stuff that was done. Highly improbable the judge will have sympathy for them.

A judgement of 500k per plaintiff is obviously likely going to not be collected on unless this business was making a very very significant amount of money which is possible given that the one owner was taking $60,000 a month as salary.

 

[SlickyBoy]

Judgements are indeed difficult to collect, which would make any victory by the plaintiffs a Pyrrhic one. It took me almost two decades to collect on one, and even then it had a lot to do with chance occurrences.

Garnishing wages is possible, sure, but you know as well as I do that no competent lawyer is going to want to wait around for his money while these three stooges schlep away at (less than) $60k a year for the next however many years.

As mentioned before, while the guys behind this are sleaze bags, I do not for one second take the word of the women involved at face value. She said? Oh wow, ok, must be true.

 

[The Wire]

I do not for one second take the word of the women involved at face value. She said? Oh wow, ok, must be true.

Curious what part do you not believe?

 

[SlickyBoy]

Absent cross examination, the "she said" part.

 

[The Wire]

Absent cross examination, the "she said" part.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase this....do you believe they told the girls this was for DVD only to be release in Australia and not to be release online?

 

[lavidaloca]

As mentioned before, while the guys behind this are sleaze bags, I do not for one second take the word of the women involved at face value. She said? Oh wow, ok, must be true.

There are 20+ plaintiffs and over 100 whom spoke with the outlets, many of which didn't want to join the lawsuit because of statute of limitations and further tarnishment of their names.

If you think that many woman are telling bullshit stories about the same individuals and company I don't know what to tell you. Maybe Ted Bundy didnt murder all those woman I guess cause he says he didn't.

 

[SlickyBoy]

I can't take it at face value, no. I might feel differently if it were my daughter, sure, but wanting to believe something and having solid reasons for doing so are not the same thing. That said, I did not dive into the details as deeply as it seems a lot of people here did.

Even if it turns out to be true that they told them it was for DVD Australian distribution only versus online, that sounds like an argument for increased monetary compensation (i.e., a theory of unjust enrichment on the part of the defendants) versus the general idea that these prostit.. - I mean models - were fraudulently induced.

 

[The Wire]

The only thing I would say is you need to read the actual court documents to understand this because trying to look at it from the outside with logic is not going to peel back the skin here. They have a declaration of a witness so far that claims she has known these guys since 2015 and was paid and instructed by the girlsdoporn guys to lie about the distribution. They have text messages backing this up as well. The DVD distribution method is actually emphasized in the text messages from the girl to the point of asking if there is anyway for the DVDs to get back to the U.S.

The witness also claims the girlsdoporn guys offered her $1000 to not corporate in the case.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15N-RymJ2xEl8rogQfEEc6kg1qF0NOuGB/view

So far I haven't seem any real defense besides the contact they signed and now they declared bankruptcy on the site. Im sure there is some bullshit to the case and it's pretty steep but there some real tough evidence with a shitty defense.

 

[eradicator]

If you think that many woman are telling bullshit stories about the same individuals and company I don't know what to tell you

I don’t think the girls are lying but they signed contracts to have sex on camera and then they had sex on camera. The guys said they would not put the videos on the internet and did so anyways as per the terms of the contract.

The guys clearly lied but I don’t really have much sympathy for the girls in the story.

The story they all seem to tell is that they were given a lengthy contract to sign and were rushed to sign without getting a chance to read it. The girls totally have the option to leave and walk out at that point. They didn’t, they agreed to take money in exchange for having sex on camera.

They are very much whores and the guys paying them are very much doing shady and dishonest practices but illegal? I guess saying afterwards they will pay the girls less because they were less attractive in person, that’s shady as hell and perhaps illegal. That’s something they should be clear on up front.

If the girls were told they would get paid 5000 up front and then were given 1000, they should get the other 4000, but should all these hoes suing get 500000? I doubt it.

 

[Scoundrel]

Here's a video of one of the more (in)famous GDP girls reading her contract out loud before her shoot:



It's a very standard model/performer release. It includes language indicating that the producers have the right to use the footage however they choose.

Here's another video of a young woman talking about her GDP experience. It sheds a lot of light not only on the process, but also on the state of mind of a girl who agrees to do this sort of thing:



She's overall positive about her shoot, although she does say that the producers never told her specifically which website the video was intended for, despite her repeated asking.

She also says her initial contact with the company was in response to a Craigslist ad soliciting for nude models. It was only after she got in touch with them that they revealed that they were actually looking for girls for hardcore porn.

For me, though, the most significant moment is at the ten minute mark:

"To understand why I did it, you also have to understand that I'm very impulsive. [laughs] I do what I want to do without thinking of consequences. I don't think about myself, I don't think about the outcome."

Clearly this is a girl who absolutely should not be making any important life decisions by herself.

 

[Eusebius]

We're past a tipping point here, when girls think they'll be better off socially by "coming clean" and admitting they did porn, because they can claim they were innocent victims. No-one is penalising them - their universities, employers or boyfriends - just because there are images of them taking a few loads to the face. No-one really cares anymore, and the girls can have their cake and eat it too by getting cash when they need it and then more attention and sympathy later on.
I've been as complicit a porn consumer as anyone, but I'm starting to think maybe this should be made illegal. The whole reason it has been illegal in most times and places is because it's obvious that shady operators can take advantage of adult but stupid or vulnerable women, and we as a society shouldn't be enabling that.

 

[jeffreyjerpp]

She also says her initial contact with the company was in response to a Craigslist ad soliciting for nude models. It was only after she got in touch with them that they revealed that they were actually looking for girls for hardcore porn.

For me, though, the most significant moment is at the ten minute mark:

"To understand why I did it, you also have to understand that I'm very impulsive. [laughs] I do what I want to do without thinking of consequences. I don't think about myself, I don't think about the outcome."

Clearly this is a girl who absolutely should not be making any important life decisions by herself.

These girls have nearly every privilege imaginable.

Youth. Beauty. Freedom. A society that "empowers" them to ask for anything, and usually get it.

And what do they do with it?

Nude modeling shoots. Sex for cash. Porn scenes shot with grimy ex cons in a holiday inn by the highway in San Diego.

Honestly, it blows my mind. They could have handsome boyfriends and party for a few years, then settle down to a life of sophistication and leisure with a doctor or lawyer.

Instead they chose....this.