Someone recently asked me about the Mercedes Carrera case and I realized we hadn’t exactly done an update lately on her case so I thought I would share with you some information I’ve recently learned.
Mercedes Carrera and her husband have been granted bail in June in the amount of $2 million each. However, they don’t have enough money to make bail so for now at least they sit in jail awaiting trial.
Their last scheduled preliminary hearing was rescheduled due to a scheduling conflict with their own lawyers.
Despite what others might have you believe, the DA’s office isn’t using repeated delays as a tactic. Each of the rescheduled preliminary hearings has always been as a result of the defendant’s lawyers.
Since her arrest, we have learned that Mercedes and her husband did in fact film adult content in their apartment when a minor child was present, although we can assume the minor child (hopefully) was in another room.
Did the child actually witness any sex acts? We don’t know. However, statements made by the police department would lead us to believe she did. HOWEVER, there is really no way for us to know what the child saw or heard during her time living in the apartment.
We have also learned that at least two other male performers lived with them from time to time. It is thought that bringing male sex workers into the home is the first thing that set the biological father of the child off in the first place and began her attempt to remove the child in question from the home.
What we can say for sure is there were drugs and a loaded firearm or two present. This is the one charge that may not be so easy to defend. And this charge alone is a felony-level offense that could land the couple in prison for up to 4 years.
As far as the other charges go, it really depends on what kind of evidence they have on her. Yes they claim they have tons, but we won’t really know that until the trial beings, which at this point could be another year or more.
Either way, it’s going to be hard to defend the drug and gun charges.
17 Responses
Performers that shoot content at home now think they don’t have to follow any rules the studios do and it come back to bite them in the ass. You can’t shoot porn in your home with minors present just like you can’t do that on a proper porn set.
Same issue applies to the girls shooting without proper documentation at home. You can’t shoot porn on a Lansky or Woodman set without documentation that each and every performer is of legal age. Why do you think its OK to shoot content at home and don’t need it?
Swedish schools and kindergartens in the 1970s took children to art exhibitions, where people had intercourse in public as part of the exhibition.
@karmafan, those girls who shoot for onlyfans & manyvids are major 2257 violators but when the feds decide to go at them, the platforms will run away and leave them to the wolves.
You got that right. Performers will be thrown right under the bus. In fact I think it just happened a few weeks back with one well known female performer (I just forgot who).
Karma, that would be Vicky Vixxx. The feds didn’t get her yet but ManyVids did when they requested Vicky to send over her 2257 paperwork — you know, like all clip sale sites (supposedly) require so they can’t get charged for not having the paperwork themselves. I expect the feds to investigate her and anticipate seeing pictures of Vicky in cuffs being led to an Federal Bureau of Imbeciles sedan by four burly male FBI defectives very soon. I hope she is cute in cuffs and the FBI defectives jack off to the memory when they go home (if they don’t just gangbang her right then and there).
Matthew Harris encouraging rape? The same Matthew Harris who was deemed psychotic and shown the door at the fanboi forum for his rather interesting views on Cytherea being raped in a home invasion?
I don’t recall that one, BevMo the Cocksucker (BTW, how are those “bi-curious” movies you are directing going, do you jack off to them or throw up your lunch during filming). I also wasn’t “shown the door” at any forum, I drifted away from one (ADT) and quit the other one (TRPWL) but was not banned from either. I also didn’t “encourage” rape, I just stated the obvious that defectives, screws and fellow inmates will likely take advantage of the situation and rape her. I said that I hoped she was cute in cuffs and that the defectives jacked off to the memory of her wriggling seductively in those handcuffs. Sorry for any confusion or maybe BevMo is drunk as usual.
mharris127, Vicky had a subset of her videos pulled over a DMCA take-down request which as you probably know has nothing to do with 2257. For those who don’t know, DMCA has to do with copyright, not releases, nor 2257, nor ID verification. She is the victim of targeted harassment by Derek aka @ProModelWorld on twitter, who submitted the (what I believe was fraudulent) request by asserting he was the legal copyright holder of the videos. He was also was a primary source for the two stories Kelli did on the matter. You can see my detailed comments on each of those articles for more information on the matter.
@AmDazed please do not speak of which you do not know. Your little friend Vicky has no 2257 documentation OR signed model releases. I’m sorry that your friend was too stupid to get the required legal documentation when she produced her own content, but when that happens, your shit gets taken down.
Yes, ManyVids contacted Vicky to verify she had the required legal documents before pulling her content. She didn’t, so the content got removed from their platform. /End of story
Kelli, I think Ms. Vixxx proved herself to be quite the moron with this one. I am surprised ManyVids even posted the videos without copies of the 2257 paperwork in PDF form sent over with the video. They had to take the videos down, they should have never been posted without them having copies of the 2257 paperwork and the model releases — this also proves that whomever approves video posting at MV fucked up as well. I am surprised she only lost 25 videos, I expect a complete audit of her account for 2257 compliance shortly and MV is probably required to contact the FBI as well.
Talk about speaking of thing I do not know about… Have you read the DMCA and All revisions and court rulings/modifications of 2257, because I have.
Do either you Kelli or you mharris post videos to manyvids? That’s a rhetorical question because you don’t otherwise you’d know they don’t require the upload nor verify 2257s nor model releases. Does ManyVids discuss active investigations into producers with anyone… NO. And if what you were saying was true, they’d have closed her account and pulled all her videos, but what you are saying is not how things actually work at ManyVids. Additionally, ProModelWorld asserted the same thing you just did on twitter and Manyvids actually replied and said, “Please note we do not publicly discuss any account specific details. On behalf of those involved, we request you remove these assumptive statements.” Assumptive statements implying they are inaccurate. (View here: https://twitter.com/ProModelWorld/status/1139611032211656704)
And again, the DMCA mechanism that Derek admitted to using to pull the 16 videos has nothing to do with either releases or 2257, even if he slipped language regarding them into his request, because they are not necessary for copyright ownership nor protection. Nor does the law require that a copyright owner produce any documentation as proof on either side of a DMCA take-down notice, it actually only requires a sworn statement of ownership to file a claim, or rebut a claim, though a host doesn’t have to actually give an opportunity to rebut a claim. So it would look like this based on the law: Under DMCA Derek swore he was the copyright holder for the videos, ManyVids took them down and then potentially gave Vicky the chance to simply swear that she was actually the copyright holder. Vicky either wasn’t given the opportunity to respond, or pulled the videos willingly, or didn’t defend the notice (most likely in an attempt to end the ongoing harassment and threats to her family she was suffering from Derek).
Am Dazed from Heroin, you already made me laugh today and I just got out of bed. No one wants to buy ManyVids videos from a fat, graying senior citizen (or maybe that is a fetish that hasn’t been tapped yet). As far as MV not requiring copies of 2257 paperwork, that is going to bite them in the ass. They are required by law to have copies of said paperwork before posting videos, even if it is just a PDF file organized according to 2257 law. If they don’t have that paperwork, management and board members at MV are liable for (IIRC) five years in prison (each) for each violation — even if the owner has the paperwork in his/her possession.
As for the harassment accusations against Derek, if they are true (which I doubt) Vicky needs to get an attorney and deal with it in court. Derek doesn’t have time to harass Vicky (who isn’t and never has been one of his clients), he has more on his plate than he can handle now with his very large talent agency. Also, Derek has been honest about his judgement lapses to this point (one of the admissions is having sexual relations with one of his clients and in a video response produced by him denying most of the allegations against him in a recent NBC Los Angeles hit piece allowing another to admit to him fucking her for two years while she was one of his clients, those are biggies that you or I wouldn’t dare admit to in his situation) — with this exemplary track record of honesty I would expect that he has the character to admit to any further lapses.
mharris, glad you were laughing, it’s good for the soul, lol. Anyway, big point of clarification, we are talking about Derek of twitter handle @ProModelWorld , not Derek of LA direct who has nothing to do with this situation, and you can see from his @ProModelWorld twitter he is a narcissist, not playing with a full deck, and harasses many people, with Vicky being his biggest target because she kicked him to the curb from their Dom/Sub relationship(So I gather from twitter, though he has pulled posts, apologized, then re-upped the assault again, multiple times in the last year, so I’m not sure that everything is on there, but enough for an intelligent person to see whats going on still).
As far as ManyVids and 2257, they are using what I call the “WebHost” exception. Its how adult producers are able to host content on third party servers and use services like cloudflare, without providing 2257 documentation to all these providers for everything that runs through their services. The premise is that if you are simply offering storage, indexing, and merchant services and not producing nor editing the content, then you don’t have to get involved with 2257 nor releases. As a webhost, like google, the only responsibility you have is to quickly remove content when you receive a legal DMCA take-down notice, and to make sure you quickly address issues with illegal content such as child pornography or similar. Due to the business relationship with posters and the verification of their identity by ManyVids, this type of illegal content isn’t a big problem for them because there is a pretty solid paper trail(Videos are never posted anonymously).
I am so sorry, Am Dazed. When people mention Derek in this industry they automatically think of Derek Hay. I don’t know jack shit about Pro Modeling World’s Derek.
As for the exception you cite to 2257 law, I will have to look into that one. I know for years when someone rented or sold content on their site the 2257 paperwork had to be filed with that renter/seller. Google does not allow adult content on YouTube so they wouldn’t be affected by section 2257 law.
@mharris127 I’d definitely like to hear your take on it after your research. Also, I was referring to google search and virtual server rental.
A couple more references are:
Like manyvids, clips4sale doesn’t require paperwork except for id verification of the producer when they create their account.
The majority of tube sites don’t require any paperwork nor id verification for regular users who upload content.
PornHub for example, only requires 2257/model releases if you are trying to get paid through one of their programs. So someone uploads my video without permission(Real Example), no paperwork… Pornhub makes a good amount of ad revenue, (on my video that got 5+ million views), I find the video, want to claim it for their performer program so I can get part of ad revenue, but since I’m not in it, I can only move it to my page after uploading all the paperwork and included it on one of the producer programs where I don’t get paid for the past revenue. So instead I send a DMCA request to google for every google search result that brings up a Pornhub page that has a thumbnail of the video or the video itself. Google De-Indexes all those pages and sends notice to PornHub giving them a chance to swear they have ownership of that thumbnail and video or that its not on those pages, PornHub never replied. Then I send DMCA takedown notice to pornhub for the video and Pornhub took it down. The only one who ever replied to google from one of my takedowns was RedTube, after removing my video, a month after, they replied to google saying they now have the rights to everything on all the pages google had de-indexed due to my claim, google re-indexed those pages and sent me a copy of RedTubes legal response swearing to these statements which if they had lied I could use to win more money in a lawsuit against them.
Anyway, if the law worked the way Kelli thinks it does, pornhub couldn’t allow all the pirated videos on their site that they do because they’d all have to have 2257 paperwork and model releases sent before posting, and since they don’t for the majority of their videos they would be the largest target for 2257 investigation. To be clear, not having a model release doesn’t violate 2257 nor DMCA, I threw model releases in there because she uses model releases with 2257 a both being legal requirements. In my jurisdiction it is not a crime not to have model releases, but they due protect me civilly. Some sites require 2257 so they can be extra safe and avoid child porn, and model releases to make sure their producers are on the up and up and to help protect the industry against piracy. I believe some require both to avoid DMCA issues which can be burdensome.
Pornhub is using the YouTube exemption allowing their users to post and placing the onus on the copyright owner to have it taken down. They are violating section 2257 by allowing the posting of explicit video, the DMCA does not also exempt them from section 2257. They get away with it because the companies that run the tube sites are not based in the US (even though MindGeek has a subsidiary that is based here and produces content, MindGeek’s tube sites are based in Cyprus). I need to look at this further but as of a few years ago sites such as PornHub, ManyVids, Clips 4 Sale, etc. were still required to have section 2257 paperwork for all explicit videos on the site.
So I’m currently wondering if the 2257 provisions struck down in Aug 2018 are still enforceable while waiting for the current appeals. Do you have an opinion?
I must admit the distributor exemption has always confused me a little and I’ve thought that perhaps if you don’t use other peoples content in advertising nor edit it, nor repost it anywhere that your 2257 exposure would be limited only to content that you perform one of those actions on. Now I’m thinking after reviewing my last statement that perhaps the free content that a tube site doesn’t pay anyone for and only receives passive advertising revenue on might provide a defense they plan to use if enforcement action against them occurs… by keeping them in the exempt group and not either of the producer groups. Something I never really thought about was the location being outside the US as I thought if you sell here, you had to follow the rules here…. and if this is not the case then obviously their behavior may be moot for this discussion.
For me, until the appeals are done, record keeping, cross indexing, and 2257 notices on content will continue to be standard operating procedure.
I’m looking forward to hearing more of your opinions on the matter. Thanks.