I would think that the fake referral saying, "Oh yeah, these guys are completely legit, you will get all your money and the video will never appear on the internet, mine was only for dvds in Australia" might create an opening to sue and win a lawsuit, but I am no lawyer.
Girlsdoporn.com lawsuit/declaring bankruptcy
- Thread starter The Wire
- Start date
SlickyBoy
Hummingbird
Provided the contracts was drafted by a competent attorney and not signed under duress, I don't think that'll get them far - parol evidence rule. It means oral agreements or promises extrinsic to the written contract are usually worth shit-all. Proving fraudulent inducement is another matter - who posted the fake referral?
From what others posted, there is also video evidence of the prosti - I mean, actresses - reading the terms of the deal before they performed.
From what others posted, there is also video evidence of the prosti - I mean, actresses - reading the terms of the deal before they performed.
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/investi...s-Smugglers-and-Mexican-Cartel-510221931.html
Dang this is uncovering all sorts of bigger stuff.
Dang this is uncovering all sorts of bigger stuff.
BlastbeatCasanova said:
Porn was very profitable in the age of physical media, but like most media, the internet and piracy disrupted their traditional revenue streams. What's happened, is the production value has gone down, with sets, "scripts", and higher paid porn "stars" just being replaced with girls fucking on a bed with some lighting equipment and cameras. Pornhub is one of the most visited sites on the net, and while the vast majority of viewers do not click on advertising or subscribe to the content providers, the numbers are so big that there's still money to be made. Some of GDP's hottest girls had 20 million+ hits on Pornhub. With that kind of exposure you are bound to convert some people.
jeffreyjerpp
Kingfisher
Swordfish1010 said:
The media and courts have declared these guys guilty, probably for political reasons:
^Anyone who hadn't read this thread would think the producers of Girls Do Porn were somewhere between Hitler and Charles Manson after reading this "news". I have zero sympathy for the GDP guys, who were clearly scumbags, but this is an astounding level of bias and basically just outright lying by the press.
The only "ties" between the Girls Do Porn producers and the criminal groups mentioned were using the same shell corporation provider. That's it, there is no other relationship between them, it's just a way of conflating the porn production with the most serious kinds of criminal activity, so the public is predisposed to hate them.
And we all know damn well none of the girls was "coerced" into anything- they were unstable sluts who thought they were going to get some $$$ in exchange for their body, and were essentially defrauded about certain minor details, like whether or not their sex tapes were going to end up on the worlds most trafficked websites.
It seems the spirit of #MeToo is infecting everything these days, sadly. I would not be surprised at all if the "rape" allegations were complete lies too, simply in order to boost the odds of a successful lawsuit pay out and ensure the GDP producers got the worst press possible.
SlickyBoy
Hummingbird
Exactly, at the worst it's a shell company they used to avoid taxes. Oh no, they flew girls across the country to participate in porn shoots?! Uh huh - just like every other sleaze bag operation in porn valley does.
That Pratt guy though - pretty shifty. Wonder if there's any connection to Richard Pratt, the Australian businessman?
That Pratt guy though - pretty shifty. Wonder if there's any connection to Richard Pratt, the Australian businessman?
The Catalyst
Ostrich
I apologise for my earlier post, I assumed the link with the Mexican Cartel was stronger/more clear cut.
jeffreyjerpp said:
Can't have this big dicked mexican guy fucking our white women and getting away with it!
^ more like can't have this non-tribe group of guys with only low-level (at best) ties to the mob muscling in on our turf
The interesting information there is that you could bang all those pretty girls and more with a sugardaddy-private-porn shoots. Even if it's true that they were lied in terms of publication - that means that they happily banged an attractive man and the producer/cameraman (GDP rep) for cash. The only difference to sub-par sugardaddies would be that the talent and producer were more attractive - for many of those girls this made the difference since GDP sent out pics of the talent in order to entice the girls. 5000$ for fucking a man they would have banged off Tinder for free, what's not to like?
Then it turns out that their entire family and friends find out. The company will likely get away with it unless there is a #metoo judge who bends the law or some girls have recordings of them promising something else.
Then it turns out that their entire family and friends find out. The company will likely get away with it unless there is a #metoo judge who bends the law or some girls have recordings of them promising something else.
Simeon_Strangelight said:
That’s one thing that was always unique about GDP and somewhat redpilling to see: these girls next door got jackhammered and facialed by a fit, SoCal bad boy, and they are on video smiling as they suck his balls and rub his abs. All while supposedly being “trafficked” and forced to do porn. A small sliver of men can pretty much melt women with their looks and confidence, and while obviously scumbags, these guys certainly figured out a way to capitalize on it. I actually think the “porn” angle is more intriguing to these women than plain old escorting or sugar baby gigs. There’s part of these girls that wants to be “famous” for their looks and sexuality (without the social repurcussions of course), and the false porn “opportunity” these guys probably concocted was exactly that. It’s not about the money to these girls, it’s the validation. Knowing a bunch of guys are jerking it to you is probably more thrilling than hanging out with some average looking rich dude for a night.
wannable alpha
Woodpecker
Women Win $13 Million in GirlsDoPorn Fraud Suit
187 page verdict : https://www.courthousenews.com/women-win-13-million-in-girlsdoporn-fraud-suit/
If you read it you will see that GDP was a criminal enterprise. Lies, lies and lies to the girls and then coercion. It's not a simple matter of "dumb sloots regretting porn shoot".
https://www.courthousenews.com/women-win-13-million-in-girlsdoporn-fraud-suit/
A judge in San Diego vindicated 22 Jane Does on Thursday by awarding them nearly $13 million in damages over the rights to videos they’d sought from adult film purveyor GirlsDoPorn following a monthslong civil fraud trial that garnered international attention.
The women claimed in a 2016 lawsuit they were duped into filming for San Diego-based GirlsDoPorn when they were between the ages 18 to 23 based on the lie the videos were for a private collector or to be sold on DVDs overseas. They said they were promised the videos would never appear online and that their names would never be associated with the videos.
In reality, GirlsDoPorn never revealed the name of the website the videos were being produced for and several in the company were in on the scheme: owner Michael Pratt, videographer Matthew Wolfe, actor Andre Garcia and administrative assistant Valorie Moser.
During the fraud trial, the defendants uploaded a new video to the GirlsDoPorn website. Jane Doe “A” testified she wasn’t told about the lawsuit when she shot the video this past August – even though the trial had been underway for nearly a month when the video was released.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright found clear and convincing evidence the defendants engaged in malice, oppression or fraud in a 187-page proposed statement of decision, awarding $9.475 million in compensatory damages and $3.3 million in punitive damages. The punitive award amounts to $150,000 for each of the women.
“Defendants’ tactics have caused the videos to become common knowledge in plaintiffs’ communities and among their relations and peers – the very thing that plaintiffs feared and that defendants expressly assured them would not happen,” Enright wrote. “As a result, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer far-reaching and often tragic consequences.”
“Collectively, they have experienced severe harassment, emotional and psychological trauma, and reputational harm; lost jobs, academic and professional opportunities, and family and personal relationships; and had their lives derailed and uprooted,” the ruling continues. “They have become pariahs in their communities. Several plaintiffs have become suicidal.”
The women’s attorney Ed Chapin said “the convincing force of our evidence” swayed the judge to find for his clients.
“Our clients were real and they had similar stories because the defendants told the same lies to everyone,” Chapin said in an interview. “I sat and talked to a lot of women. My heart just wept for them, how their lives have been impacted by this, and how they were sucked into doing what they did. The attitude these defendants expressed when the women complained, the scheme to shut them up, was despicable.”
The defendants have 15 days to file an objection to the proposed order. GirlsDoPorn’s attorneys Daniel Kaplan and Aaron Sadock indicated they will “most likely” do so.
“At this point our clients are focused on defending themselves against the criminal charges in federal court in San Diego. The tentative ruling does not affect the criminal case,” the attorneys said in a statement. “The government’s burden of proof in the criminal case is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ which is much higher standard than in this civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence. The findings of fact in the civil case do not carry over to the criminal case where the government will have to prove the facts under a much more stringent standard.”
Enright also ordered the defendants to “affirmatively disclose in bold and centered at the top of the first page the following language: ‘The pornographic video subject to this agreement will be placed on the internet, on girlsdoporn.com, or on free and public pornography websites.'” Any agreement must be sent to prospective models five days in advance of video shoots.
In his proposed decision, Enright walked through the tactics employed by GirlsDoPorn to get college-age women to appear in its videos.
“Defendants deliberately used deceptive advertisements and websites to mislead women about the nature of the work; defendants aimed to cast a wider net to attract a certain type of applicant-women who would not intentionally respond to a solicitation to appear in a pornographic video,” Enright wrote. “This is consistent with defendants’ depiction of GDP models as making a one-time-only stint into pornography.”
According to trial testimony, to convince women skeptical of appearing in the flicks to follow through, GirlsDoPorn hired reference women – some of whom who had appeared in its videos – to text prospective models and quell any concerns they had about the videos being leaked online.
As for the 8-page contracts models signed minutes before shooting videos – often after being plied with alcohol and marijuana – Enright found a reference at the bottom of the second page to “online purposes” was not an appropriate disclosure the videos were made to be posted online.
“Defendants have repeatedly professed otherwise and bury this ‘disclosure’ in a lengthy legalistic document that models are not permitted to read and digest,” Enright wrote. “The import of the section is a restriction on the model’s outside activities, not a representation regarding defendants’ use of the videos.”
Enright found all contracts signed by the plaintiffs unenforceable and void. He also found the plaintiffs hold all rights to their videos and ordered the defendants to remove the women’s images from the GirlsDoPorn website.
As for staged interviews of the models prior to shooting the porn flicks where the women were coached to act “flirty and perky” or risk not getting paid, Enright said those did not undermine the women’s fraud claims.
“It is not disputed that some plaintiffs were fully taken in by defendants’ ruse, were not frightened, and felt quite comfortable with the experience as a whole,” the judge wrote. “Video of these women cheerfully answering questions she believes no one will ever see does not necessarily undermine her fraud claim and in fact, shows how thoroughly she believed defendants.”
Within weeks of a shoot, the videos would be posted to GirlsDoPorn’s subscription-based websites with clips posted on some of the most trafficked websites in the world including PornHub.
Enright also cited evidence that GirlsDoPorn participated in “doxing” on website forums. Doxing is the internet-based practice of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a person, typically with malicious intent. Links to the videos were also sent to friends and family members, including one woman who testified her personal information and a photo of her family from her mother’s Facebook page were posted to the PornWikiLeaks website.
“It is enough that defendants knew that plaintiffs’ names would be leaked, that the videos would be sent to many of the people they knew, and that they would be harassed,” Enright wrote. “The court has little doubt of defendants’ actual knowledge of these eventualities. Dozens of prior models complained to defendants about their names being leaked in connection with the videos and about being harassed as a result-the earliest in the record is dated July 1, 2013.”
During the trial, women testified about the fallout of the videos being released online, with some saying they lost jobs and relationships, dropped out of school, experienced depression, and attempted suicide.
More than one woman testified the defendants put furniture in front of the doors of the ritzy downtown San Diego hotel rooms where the videos were shot to prevent the Does from leaving.
Federal prosecutors filed criminal sex trafficking and child pornography charges against GirlsDoPorn in the midst of the civil trial, citing Courthouse News’ coverage of the fraud case in its indictment.
Wolfe and Garcia are currently in federal custody. Moser, videographer Teddy Gyi and reference woman Amberlyn Dee Nored have been released on bond.
Pratt is a fugitive believed to be in New Zealand, his home country.
Enright issued an arrest warrant for Pratt’s failure to appear in the civil trial. The child pornography charges he faces are subject to the extradition treaty between the United States and New Zealand.
A status conference in the criminal case is set for April 24.
187 page verdict : https://www.courthousenews.com/women-win-13-million-in-girlsdoporn-fraud-suit/
If you read it you will see that GDP was a criminal enterprise. Lies, lies and lies to the girls and then coercion. It's not a simple matter of "dumb sloots regretting porn shoot".
https://www.courthousenews.com/women-win-13-million-in-girlsdoporn-fraud-suit/
A judge in San Diego vindicated 22 Jane Does on Thursday by awarding them nearly $13 million in damages over the rights to videos they’d sought from adult film purveyor GirlsDoPorn following a monthslong civil fraud trial that garnered international attention.
The women claimed in a 2016 lawsuit they were duped into filming for San Diego-based GirlsDoPorn when they were between the ages 18 to 23 based on the lie the videos were for a private collector or to be sold on DVDs overseas. They said they were promised the videos would never appear online and that their names would never be associated with the videos.
In reality, GirlsDoPorn never revealed the name of the website the videos were being produced for and several in the company were in on the scheme: owner Michael Pratt, videographer Matthew Wolfe, actor Andre Garcia and administrative assistant Valorie Moser.
During the fraud trial, the defendants uploaded a new video to the GirlsDoPorn website. Jane Doe “A” testified she wasn’t told about the lawsuit when she shot the video this past August – even though the trial had been underway for nearly a month when the video was released.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright found clear and convincing evidence the defendants engaged in malice, oppression or fraud in a 187-page proposed statement of decision, awarding $9.475 million in compensatory damages and $3.3 million in punitive damages. The punitive award amounts to $150,000 for each of the women.
“Defendants’ tactics have caused the videos to become common knowledge in plaintiffs’ communities and among their relations and peers – the very thing that plaintiffs feared and that defendants expressly assured them would not happen,” Enright wrote. “As a result, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer far-reaching and often tragic consequences.”
“Collectively, they have experienced severe harassment, emotional and psychological trauma, and reputational harm; lost jobs, academic and professional opportunities, and family and personal relationships; and had their lives derailed and uprooted,” the ruling continues. “They have become pariahs in their communities. Several plaintiffs have become suicidal.”
The women’s attorney Ed Chapin said “the convincing force of our evidence” swayed the judge to find for his clients.
“Our clients were real and they had similar stories because the defendants told the same lies to everyone,” Chapin said in an interview. “I sat and talked to a lot of women. My heart just wept for them, how their lives have been impacted by this, and how they were sucked into doing what they did. The attitude these defendants expressed when the women complained, the scheme to shut them up, was despicable.”
The defendants have 15 days to file an objection to the proposed order. GirlsDoPorn’s attorneys Daniel Kaplan and Aaron Sadock indicated they will “most likely” do so.
“At this point our clients are focused on defending themselves against the criminal charges in federal court in San Diego. The tentative ruling does not affect the criminal case,” the attorneys said in a statement. “The government’s burden of proof in the criminal case is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ which is much higher standard than in this civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence. The findings of fact in the civil case do not carry over to the criminal case where the government will have to prove the facts under a much more stringent standard.”
Enright also ordered the defendants to “affirmatively disclose in bold and centered at the top of the first page the following language: ‘The pornographic video subject to this agreement will be placed on the internet, on girlsdoporn.com, or on free and public pornography websites.'” Any agreement must be sent to prospective models five days in advance of video shoots.
In his proposed decision, Enright walked through the tactics employed by GirlsDoPorn to get college-age women to appear in its videos.
“Defendants deliberately used deceptive advertisements and websites to mislead women about the nature of the work; defendants aimed to cast a wider net to attract a certain type of applicant-women who would not intentionally respond to a solicitation to appear in a pornographic video,” Enright wrote. “This is consistent with defendants’ depiction of GDP models as making a one-time-only stint into pornography.”
According to trial testimony, to convince women skeptical of appearing in the flicks to follow through, GirlsDoPorn hired reference women – some of whom who had appeared in its videos – to text prospective models and quell any concerns they had about the videos being leaked online.
As for the 8-page contracts models signed minutes before shooting videos – often after being plied with alcohol and marijuana – Enright found a reference at the bottom of the second page to “online purposes” was not an appropriate disclosure the videos were made to be posted online.
“Defendants have repeatedly professed otherwise and bury this ‘disclosure’ in a lengthy legalistic document that models are not permitted to read and digest,” Enright wrote. “The import of the section is a restriction on the model’s outside activities, not a representation regarding defendants’ use of the videos.”
Enright found all contracts signed by the plaintiffs unenforceable and void. He also found the plaintiffs hold all rights to their videos and ordered the defendants to remove the women’s images from the GirlsDoPorn website.
As for staged interviews of the models prior to shooting the porn flicks where the women were coached to act “flirty and perky” or risk not getting paid, Enright said those did not undermine the women’s fraud claims.
“It is not disputed that some plaintiffs were fully taken in by defendants’ ruse, were not frightened, and felt quite comfortable with the experience as a whole,” the judge wrote. “Video of these women cheerfully answering questions she believes no one will ever see does not necessarily undermine her fraud claim and in fact, shows how thoroughly she believed defendants.”
Within weeks of a shoot, the videos would be posted to GirlsDoPorn’s subscription-based websites with clips posted on some of the most trafficked websites in the world including PornHub.
Enright also cited evidence that GirlsDoPorn participated in “doxing” on website forums. Doxing is the internet-based practice of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a person, typically with malicious intent. Links to the videos were also sent to friends and family members, including one woman who testified her personal information and a photo of her family from her mother’s Facebook page were posted to the PornWikiLeaks website.
“It is enough that defendants knew that plaintiffs’ names would be leaked, that the videos would be sent to many of the people they knew, and that they would be harassed,” Enright wrote. “The court has little doubt of defendants’ actual knowledge of these eventualities. Dozens of prior models complained to defendants about their names being leaked in connection with the videos and about being harassed as a result-the earliest in the record is dated July 1, 2013.”
During the trial, women testified about the fallout of the videos being released online, with some saying they lost jobs and relationships, dropped out of school, experienced depression, and attempted suicide.
More than one woman testified the defendants put furniture in front of the doors of the ritzy downtown San Diego hotel rooms where the videos were shot to prevent the Does from leaving.
Federal prosecutors filed criminal sex trafficking and child pornography charges against GirlsDoPorn in the midst of the civil trial, citing Courthouse News’ coverage of the fraud case in its indictment.
Wolfe and Garcia are currently in federal custody. Moser, videographer Teddy Gyi and reference woman Amberlyn Dee Nored have been released on bond.
Pratt is a fugitive believed to be in New Zealand, his home country.
Enright issued an arrest warrant for Pratt’s failure to appear in the civil trial. The child pornography charges he faces are subject to the extradition treaty between the United States and New Zealand.
A status conference in the criminal case is set for April 24.
Amazing turn of events there!
That site had always the most beautiful girls and now it's clear why they could make it work while the industry big-shots got far less attractive and more thot-like girls.
I am happy that at least those bozos got what they deserved and the girls at least received some cash for it.
How stupid could those morons be? That this would not come out at all? And all tribes are in on it - one Jewish, one Latinoa and one Christian New Zealand guy as the main perps. But it still shows you that those super-attractive girls still have some resistance to total degeneration. The overwhelming majority of them are one-and-dones - and it seems that they were conned heavily.
That site had always the most beautiful girls and now it's clear why they could make it work while the industry big-shots got far less attractive and more thot-like girls.
I am happy that at least those bozos got what they deserved and the girls at least received some cash for it.
How stupid could those morons be? That this would not come out at all? And all tribes are in on it - one Jewish, one Latinoa and one Christian New Zealand guy as the main perps. But it still shows you that those super-attractive girls still have some resistance to total degeneration. The overwhelming majority of them are one-and-dones - and it seems that they were conned heavily.
griffinmill
Pelican
*gets out notebook and begins scribbling furiously*
Note to self: don't consciously and voluntarily imbibe mind-altering drugs before signing a contact drafted by sleazy porn producers.
griffinmill said:
Words to live by
SlickyBoy said:
Here we almost 1 year later. Cali-pornia Judge just awarded them almost 13 million, the owner fled to New Zealand, Co-owner and few employees are in Federal prison waiting trial. I don't know if they will get a dime but like I said from the start the law is often what the judge says the law is and contracts do not mean anything when it's in front of a judge. The judge determines the validity of a contract.
In the era of the Fappening where even supposedly private and secure photos wound up online how could women like this expect that commercial porn DVDs would remain offline? They're still damn gullible even if the contract was fraudulent, and doing something society frowns on under the basis that they can be discrete is hardly honorable behavior.