Cameron Bay And Rod Daily Sue Kink.com

I knew this was coming…it was just a matter of when.  The lawsuit is here

Cameron Bay Rod Daily Lawsuit

This will completely challenge statements made about no on set transmissions, but beyond that it is attacking the entire premise that the way kink does business is safe. Look at all the counts of negligence. They wont have to prove that she got it on set, only that it was likely that she got it on set and that was a forseeable outcome.

I’d bet my last dollar that kink will settle this quietly, probably with a gag order.  if it goes to trial and kink loses, then the condom law wont matter…porners will be insisting that talent double wrap it for a scene….

This will be one to watch.

66 Replies to “Cameron Bay And Rod Daily Sue Kink.com”

  1. joeschmoe

    I don’t understand this. Rod did gay porn, and even knowingly had HIV positive partners. How can they just be so firm on believing Cameron got it on a Kink set and that is that. it is just as likely he barebacked one of his guys off set or did some bareback escorting and gave it to her. Both scenarios are possible so what gives here?

  2. Karmafan

    One thing is for sure, the days of crossover talent being used by the straight studios will be coming to an end.

  3. jw

    Joe I agree with you, Rod did knowingly do gay porn. So how could Cameron get it on a Kink set? Also she was the only one to get it. From what I read it takes two, you know one to pass it on to another. HIV doesn’t appear out of nowhere. I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait to see how all this plays out.

  4. mharris127

    I have to agree. In order for Cameron to get HIV (or any other VD) someone else on that Kink set had to also have it. If I recall Xander Corvus was suspected of giving it to her originally as it was his dick that bled in her ass and pussy but he tested negative in the months after Cameron’s infection — therefore he could not give it to her (also, Xander still performs in porn with negative VD tests twice a month). I think Cameron got it from her bisexual boyfriend Rod Daily but we will never know for sure. We do know for sure that she did not get HIV from a Kink set, however. Hopefully the judge dismisses this insane lawsuit in quickly and in summary. This is just a money grab on Cameron’s part and Kink (or more accurately State Fund which is the Workman’s Comp insurer in California) is the moneybag she is trying to raid.

  5. MikeSouth

    One of the legal beagles or BT can correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it Cameron and Rod do NOT have to prove that they got it on the Kink set.

    The question will be, given the protocols and the situation was it likely that Kink could have foreseen that this could happen. Thats a much broader view.

    In criminal proceedings you have to prove that the defendant committed the crime. In a civil proceeding that level of proof isn’t necessary, thats the part that porners are missing. and thats why I say Kink will settle…they will settle because The FSCwill push them to settle because if Kink goes to trial and loses then it becomes a minefield for porners…every company except Wicked will be looking at similar suits, not just from HIV but any STD.

    I was told a year ago that this lawsuit was coming and now here it is….

    If Kink loses the condom law becomes a moot point.

  6. LurkingReader

    Not a lawyer & haven’t read the documents but expect you’re correct about possibility vs certainty Mike.

    I’m not sure about FSC pushing to settle up front, is Kink’s OSHA appeal still pending? Gut feeling is that will play front and center in the lawsuit. Kinda curious why it isn’t going through Workers Comp like the 98 case that dragged on over ten years.

    On a separate note seeing this is a reminder of Facebook msg re danger daughters peer was in that brought me here two years ago when Cameron Bay was front page news. Feels like yesterday and ages ago at same time when I needed to know more about HIV testing to prove the guy sitting in jail today was trying to pass off a three month old viral load test to prove his ex was a disgruntled jealous lying bitch. CET HepC post brought a chuckle recalling Rob Black ranting outrage over the syphillis letters. Must say they pale in comparison to idea of people running around with untreated HepC. If I were in porn I’d be finding out what those liver tests jilted mentioned are and all the stuff that helped do away with my initial insistence that HIV antibody testing ought to be mandated for the workplace. I’m still for rapid testing as an option for those not reassured with the Aptima or similar testing but can’t reconcile antibody testing as a standard against other labor policy I’m familiar with and expect that Hep C testing wars are on the horizon for the porn industry.

    End of the day the Cameron Bay HIV event is still a policy queen’s dream for how some stuff makes long lasting ripples in lots of interconnected ponds.

  7. BT

    Mike: It’s the end of my work day and I just logged on to check what’s new, but haven’t had a chance to read the complaint. I will.

    That said, you are correct as to there being a different standard in a civil suit than a criminal suit. In a civil suit, the standard is sometimes called a preponderance of the evidence, or, more likely than not. Basically – you just have to tip the scales to 51%. And yes, the negligence standard is that Kink knew – or should have known – that this could happen.

    I have to read the complaint to see what either Cameron Bay or Rod Daily are claiming. So, caveat emptor – I’m talking out of my ass. But, it is conceivable that Rod Daily infected Cameron Bay and Kink is still to blame. How?

    Let’s say that that Rod Daily can show that it is more likely than not that he contracted HIV on a Kink set and then transmitted HIV to Cameron Bay. Daily can blame Kink – but so can Bay because had it not been for Kink’s negligence, she would not have contracted HIV from Daily.

    Think of it this way. I take my car in for a brake job. The mechanic forgets to replace the brake fluid. My brakes fail and I run over a pedestrian. I can sue the mechanic because of negligence; the pedestrian or the pedestrian’s estate if he dies can also sue because if it weren’t for the mechanic’s negligence, the pedestrian wouldn’t have been hit. The mechanic knew, or should have known, that not putting brake fluid in the vehicle could lead to some very bad stuff.

  8. MikeSouth

    Thanks BT your track record on these kind of things is spot on plus you have the benefit of experience with it, Im very interested in your thoughts. I am almost certain that the porners like Mark kernes squealing that Cameron will have to prove she got it on set are dead wrong.

  9. Removed Account

    I thought, maybe I’m remembering wrong but I thought when all this originally happened it was determined that Cameron Bay had it first and is the one who gave it to Rod based on her viral load count. Right? Or am I totally remembering that wrong?

  10. MikeSouth

    I honestly dont remember but its irrelevant who gave it to whom….that wont be what the lawsuit is about hell they may say one or the other had it and didnt know it and they infected the other. what will be relevant is whether or not this was a foreseeable consequence given the way Kink did the shoot

  11. rawalex

    The requirement to get a favorable judgement in a civil suit is much lower than a criminal one. Just ask OJ Simpson how that works. Cameron and Rod should only have to show that the “unsafe workplace” and “risky activities” and “insufficient testing methods” lead to an inevitable situation, and they should have an easy win.

    However, a couple of things here. First and foremost, you have to wonder how much the judge will look at their situations as experienced porn performers and as such, should have long been aware of the issues. That is to say that they entered into shooting with Kink with their eyes wide open, and that the situations of testing and such at Kink were perhaps not any different from other porn shoots that the duo had experienced.

    Second, I could see Kink easily bringing up their personal lives and sex lives away from the set. If Kink can build a case of either of them taking extreme risks away from the set within a short period before the shoot, they may be able to show both an alternative potential infection point, and also show that the duo lived recklessly and that the circumstances of the kink shoot was no different from their real lives – and may have in fact been safer. That means anything from unprotected sex with strangers to doing “privates” for either of them could come back to bite them in the ass – and expose the dirty little secrets of porn performers.

    It should also be pointed out that settlement with a gag order doesn’t hold much water at a point in the future if one or the other is dying without any money or assets to seize left, it’s very likely that the whole story is going to come out at some point anyway. It might be just better to fight it out in court and get it over with.

    Will Kink bet the castle on this one?

  12. BT

    Any lawsuit is a crapshoot. If a trial takes place, this will be held in San Francisco, which has more liberal view on pornography and sexuality than most of the country, so may not be as shocked by what Kink.com produces compared to other parts of the country. At the same time – and this is just speculation, so buyer beware – I think California in general and San Francisco in particular has a history of support for workplace safety and worker rights, including the safety and rights of sex workers, that could work against Kink.com.

    If this does not settle and go to trial, Kink will certainly try to prove that Bay got HIV from Daily, who is not mentioned at all in this suit. It is conceivable that that is the next shoe to drop – a suit by Rod Daily against Kink? From the standpoint of HIV, I think Bay and her attorneys know that she didn’t get HIV from the bloody penis shoved in her mouth because there’s no evidence that Xander has HIV. But, she is also suing 50 John Does – the anonymous patrons from the public who joined in the night’s activities and were not tested.

    The risk to Bay is that they get the medical records of all 50 John Does and none is HIV positive, or was HIV positive at the time of the shoot. The risk to Kink is that they did not keep records of the 50 individuals involved in the shoot – if so, Bay doesn’t have to prove anything beyond negligence.

    While HIV is the most eye-catching aspect of this suit, in addition, she goes after Kink’s day-to-day business practices as negligent – that she was misled; that they didn’t maintain a safe workplace; that she was exposed to blood born pathogens on the set; that she was physically abused far beyond what she had been led to believe (she suffered real injuries to her breast that required corrective surgery); that the director wasn’t qualified; and that the director and other performers did not adhere to her no list (its not fisting if I only use four fingers even though you told me no – hey, we hired you as a dom, so you have no “no”). And, the allegation that the consent video at the end was manipulated by editing out answers they didn’t like.

    If Bay can get this into discovery, obtain records and conduct depositions, her team can put Kink’s business practices under a microscope and that’s not likely to be pretty. Think Planned Parenthood and fetal tissue videos – they’re ugly even though the activity in question is perfectly legal. I think she can do damage just on negligence, if she can prove it.

    So, the other shoe is Daily. If he can prove he got HIV from Cameron, then Kink has a share of responsibility. On the other hand, if he can prove he got HIV on a Kink set and gave it to Cameron, Kink shares responsibility.

    One way or another, he’s part of the suit because Kink will bring him in. I’m assuming Cameron’s lawyer knows something, or the firm wouldn’t have filed the suit.

    But ……. any lawsuit is a crap shoot.

  13. mharris127

    Why isn’t Princess Donna on their defendant list (yes, I know she likely lost her job over this as her contract was not renewed when it expired)? This was her site to direct. Even Lorelei Lee is on the list and all she was at that time was a performer — and she tested negative when this took place. Did they settle with Donna out of court? It seems like this would be mainly her fault (this was the same set where Cameron’s tit implant was ruptured and she was supposedly beaten to a pulp).

    BTW Lorelei fought to keep her legal name out of the public view during the Stagliano case, now it is front and center in these documents. Wonder how pissed she will be once she finds out (she is now back in the US from her European vacation, I would bet she reads this site along with just about everyone else in porn).

  14. MikeSouth

    Thank you BT your thoughts are always appreciated and I think you pretty much nailed it. This will be interesting to watch, i think it will have a much larger bearing on the industry than the condom law in the long run.

  15. MikeSouth

    thats actually a good question MH. i think theres a lot that is going to come out of this that we dont know…could be Donna is actually on Camerons side…who knows….as BT pointed out Camerons Lawyer prolly has some cards to play that are strong…

  16. BT

    MH – Lee is in the case because she was the “guest director,” and theoretically responsible for the shoot. As alleged in the suit, her role went beyond performing. If true, as alleged in the suit, she refused to stop filming or have Xander wear a condom when he started bleeding (the suit alleges that Cameron asked if he shouldn’t wear a condom since he was bleeding); the suit alleges that Lee “fisted” Bay even though Bay asked her to stop, arguing that it wasn’t fisting because she only put four fingers and not the thumb (that was Seymour Butt’s defense and, hey, it actually worked); that the 50 bystanders weren’t supposed to participate but took their turns with Bay and Lee didn’t stop it; and that Lee manipulated the consent video at the end by continually re-asking questions when she didn’t like Bay’s answers, editing out the negative answers for the compliance video.

    Again, these are all allegations and Bay will have to prove them. But, if true, Lee, as director, could be found negligent. Or, in the alternative, could try to throw Kink under the bus in her defense (I was only doing what Kink told me to do).

    The other factor is this – if this is going to go forward, one has to hope that Cameron’s attorneys are well-funded because the discovery process is going to be very expensive for them and one presumes that Kink can afford a legal team that will bury the other side in motions and paper.

    Counting on Mike to keep an eye on the filings. Porn has been quiet for a very long time.

  17. mharris127

    BT, I saw that in the paperwork. My understanding before reading the lawsuit was that Donna was the one responsible on set and she was there that day. As AHF is probably bankrolling this lawsuit (and we all know how much of a liar Weinfuck is) I don’t take what is written in it at face value. I suspect Lorelei was actually a director in training under Donna’s direction (and I also suspect Donna was on set that day), Cameron’s and Weinfuck’s attorneys are shooting blind here and attempting to soak everyone involved — and Donna settled out of court for a couple hundred thousand dollars rather than chance losing at trial (she worked at Kink for over ten years of which the last 5-7 years she likely earned at a minimum $500K a year, she probably saved her money and is now retired so she can put her own self interest above the industry’s).

    I expect this lawsuit to be thrown out of court as everyone that had genital/oral/anal contact with her that day tested negative for HIV and her infection seems to be the main basis to her (or more accurately Weinfuck’s) lawsuit. I also expect Cameron (and Weinfuck) to be ordered to pay for Kink’s, Lorelei’s, the owner of the bar’s and Does 1-50’s expenses because this lawsuit is frivolous in its entirety. Cameron needs to go crawl back under whatever scummy rock she came out from under and get over it.

    Also, if some of the accusations in the lawsuit (in particular the forced “fisting” accusation) were actually true Lorelei and possibly Donna would be doing life in prison under California’s rape statutes getting ass fucked by five bubba guards with 14 inch BBCs nightly right now instead of (respectively) traveling in Europe on a sabbatical and driving around the US in a Winnie retired. Peter would also be bankrupt right now if these accusations had even a modicum of truth to them.

  18. BT

    MH – I’m not part of the adult entertainment industry, so I really don’t know anything about any of the personalities here. For the purposes of the lawsuit, especially at this stage, none of that matters anyway. What I do know is that the law gives a great deal of deference to people filing a lawsuit in order to give folks their day in court. In order for Kink to get the lawsuit dismissed at this point – meaning with no discovery – they have to find something deficient about the suit. They have to show that Bay’s attorney missed a filing deadline or something technical.

    They can’t get a lawsuit dismissed by saying this is all bullshit, so it should even be in court. The reasons: In that scenario, facts are in dispute; the whole reason for going to trial is to sort out the fact.

    So …… if you’re banking on the lawsuit getting dismissed because everyone knows its not true, that isn’t going to happen at this point. That can only happen after there has been enough discovery for Kink’s attorneys to prove that there’s no factual basis for the lawsuit.

    Kink does not want discovery because, per my earlier note, folks who are focusing on HIV are missing the point. There are a whole bunch of counts in this complaint and before Bay’s attorneys ever get to talking about HIV, they allege that Kink was not in compliance with County of Los Angeles condom laws (you can say: but they’re bullshit because no one complies and the County doesn’t enforce them, but that doesn’t negate them) and that Kink was not in compliance with OSHA regulations. Last, they allege that they didn’t get consent.

    The first two – County condom law and OSHA violations – are reason enough for this to go forward. And, they go to Kink’s every day business practices. I’m just telling you: Kink does not want to start answering questions about how it does business day in and day out (and, from day one, I was right on everything the federal court and federal appeals courts were gonna do).

    To the last point about fisting and violation of rape statues ….. this is where the OJ analogy someone posted earlier comes into play. Cameron doesn’t have to file a criminal complaint against them, which requires a very different standard of proof and results in someone going to jail, but no satisfaction to her. She can file a civil complaint, which has a much lower standard of proof, and can result in damages awarded to her. If I were a young woman with HIV and few job prospects, I’d probably rather have the money than see someone get jail time.

    I’m not taking a side here or implying that Cameron Bay necessarily has a case – the only facts I know are what’s in the lawsuit and those will be contested by the other side if they don’t settle. I personally have no idea whether they’re true or not. All I’m trying to say is that while this looks like bullshit to you, it’s a very carefully constructed lawsuit that is using the County condom law, OSHA regulations and Kink’s contract and the owner’s statements against it. It will not be easily dismissed.

  19. mharris127

    BT, unfortunately there will be a lot of expense (at least initially) on Peter’s and Lorelei’s part due to this lawsuit (or more accurately Kink’s liability insurer’s although Peter and Lorelei will need to shell out the deductible). I believe it is frivolous and Cameron will be ordered to repay those expenses but this is the last thing Peter, Lorelei and Kink needed.

    There are two points you make that need further explanation. Regarding the LA County condom law this scene was filmed in San Francisco which is in San Francisco City and County, there is not a municipal condom requirement there. You also bring up OSHA but all they can do is fine them another $75K (Kink is in appeal proceedings right now on prior OSHA “violations” resulting in a fine for approximately that amount) which Peter can pay easily. Another issue regarding OSHA is that it is essentially a political agency doing Weinfuck’s bidding because he has bought his way into power. Two things can happen here — Gov. Moonbeam can step in and call off the dogs (knowing if he does not the state loses 140 jobs with an estimated average pay of $150K per annum and about 6-8 jobs paying a half million plus a year and the substantial tax revenue from them — as well as Kink’s/Cybernet’s corporate taxes) or they can run Kink out of the state and into Nevada’s waiting arms. Kink already maintains an office and rents studio space as needed there (in Clark County). OSHA in Nevada is a joke as it is in most Republican-run states, he would probably never hear from them there as long as no one dies and he creates 100 new (to Nevada) taxpaying jobs there, he currently has about 140 people working in SF City/County so this is not a problem. Peter can move the whole company there in months, he already has received multiple offers on his current SF studios (a historic building commonly referred to as the Armory) that would more than cover what he has into them. The biggest hurdle is building a new studio and accommodations for visiting talent somewhere in the desert (the Woodrocket studios which Kink currently rents on an as needed basis in Nevada cannot handle their full production schedule). Six months and that problem can be rectified. Other issues that someone can bring up (such as appropriate VD testing availability) aren’t insurmountable either, Talent Testing already has affiliates in several Nevada cities that can handle the load. I think CET also has a Nevada affiliate. It helps that Nevada also has a much lower effective state tax rate, putting more money in Peter’s pocket. Peter is also helped in that most of his jobs are unique to the porn industry and most of his staff either can move with Kink or move to LA and try to find a job paying half as much in their skill set. Another plus for Kink is that Peter is willing to hire the overly pierced and tattooed if they have the appropriate skills whereas the LA entertainment industry (both adult and mainstream) will not — so they have to move in order to keep their mainly white collar jobs and not have to take an 80% salary cut when the only jobs they can get are in some factory. For example I can look to their makeup department for two examples of this (one of whom has a very pretty face and could have had a nice career as a performer if she didn’t have jailhouse-like tattoos on 75% of her body — yes performers have tattoos but other than Bonnie Rotten and Christy Mack they don’t have this number of them). Trust me, 80% will move with him. As nice as it is for Kink employees to live in Marin (just north of SF) I would probably have moved the company a couple of years ago when this harassment started. Even if Kink has to unionize to survive (assuming he moved to Clark County/Las Vegas where the unions run the town — this is not an issue outside of Clark County) the company will be better off. Unionization is not a problem because Kink already offers high salaries and liberal benefit packages.

  20. MikeSouth

    HIGHLY unlikely that this will be tossed and even less likely that Cameron would be ordered to pay Kinks expenses..that just aint gonna happen.

    mark my words…Kink will quietly settle this

  21. rawalex

    mharris, with due respect, I don’t think Nevada wants to become a porn capital. You can imagine that given the chance, they will be out there with zoning laws and film location permit complaints to keep the porners out. This is especially true in Clark County, which is the “no prostitution” zone of Nevada.

    Also, you have to remember that California is the home of porn because of judgements rendered more than 30 years ago that made porn “legal” to shoot there. While I have stated before that I don’t think the federal courts would rule against porn shooters, the risk is that companies shooting in Nevada may have to re-prove a 30 year old case. Moving all production to a legally untested location is NOT going to be in everyone’s best interest.

    You also have to remember that the Mann act many apply, in sending performers over state lines to perform. Again, it’s unlikely to get applied, but you never know. If California agencies are sending California based talent to shoot in Nevada for a fee, you never know what an over-zealous prosecutor might do.

    Generally when porn relocates, it goes to Europe or east block countries – or Canada. With the sinking Canadian dollar, it’s actually reasonable to assume that shooting porn in Canada will rise again.

  22. jilted

    Does anyone remember the Brooke Ashely case. Never, not one single time did Brooke Ashely submit any test of any kind,not from Marc Wallice, NOTHING, and she prevailed, all the appeals, she prevailed, becuase the likelyhood that the injury occured due simply to the nature of the business, and the likelyhood that it occured during work. Even when it was proven that Ashley had worked in similar workplaces it didnt matter.

    Feel free to look up the case to confirm what I have written here,,,,,not ONE SINGLE shred of evidence of any kind that anyone else on that set had HIV, and she won, and won every single appeal

    Privacy laws will prevent Kink from presenting any other persons HIV tests,,,actually I would suspect there will be a major issue about how they recieved those results, how they stored them, who had access etc,,,,and the answers to these questions will not be good for Kink

  23. jilted

    Actually, if this case does go forward, I am looking forward to what surely will be a very thourough analysis of the ‘system’ that Kink used to ascertain their beleif that nobody else on that set was infected. I wonder if the FSC really wants the courts to go through, with a very fine tooth comb, the protocols and procedures of PASS/APHSS, the booking of job process from the ‘legal angents’,,,did the agents have access to HIPPA protected material,,,,do agents make public statements about testing before booking talent,,,,,or we just see a settlement,,,,UNLESS AHF says,,”Not interested in a settlement,,lets do all this discovery first,,then maybe we will talk settlement,,,or better yet,,,lets get some Kink and some of the people involved in their HIV program UNDER OATH and ask some questions…..One large popcorn and a Dr. Pepper please, this is going to be a fun one to watch. ONLY IN PORN

  24. BT

    MH’s reply to me regarding LA County condom law and San Francisco is correct, and I stand corrected. However, with regard to OSHA, sorry, that’s a diatribe that has nothing to do with a lawsuit.

    You don’t win a lawsuit by saying this shouldn’t go forward because OSHA is a politically-motivated organization and they can fix this. Or that Cameron Bay or her supporters should climb back under a rock.

    What OSHA violations and fines show is a pattern, practice and attitude towards performers and workplace safety that Bay and her attorneys argue led to an unsafe workplace. What allowing HIV-infected performers to continue performing will show is that there is an environment where stuff can happen. They can win part of this lawsuit without proving she got HIV on that set.

    But to my larger point, at this stage in the game, lawsuits do not get tossed because of personalities or because one side says the facts presented by the other side are bogus. At this stage, lawsuits get tossed on technicalities about the filing – the statute of limitations on the alleged harm has passed; the plaintiff just completely misstates the law; it’s filed in this locale but really, that locale has no jurisdiction and it should be filed in another locale.

    The fact that one side – presumably Kink’s – says that the other side has the facts wrong is precisely the reason the lawsuit will move forward for a bit. Facts in dispute is the reason you go to court in the first place. A lawsuit resolves them.

    In order for Kink to get this lawsuit dismissed based on MH’s analysis, they have to go through some level of discovery – both sides will send out interrogatories, which are written questions that have to be answered under oath; both sides will request documents from the other; both sides will have some level of investigation to interview witnesses off the record; and both sides will take depositions.

    After discovery is over – and only then – can Kink’s lawyers ask for the lawsuit to be summarily dismissed because there’s no factual basis for the lawsuit to go forward; to get to that point, Kink’s lawyers have to show that looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, she still can’t prevail.

    I’m just telling you – Kink does not want to put its business practices under a microscope, whether BDSM is legal or not. A First Amendment-minded, liberal from San Francisco who liked 50 Shades Of Grey can still come to the conclusion that on this shoot, Kink went too far.

    If Kink doesn’t settle, what this ultimately will come down to is who has the most money and stomach for discovery.

    Last point, MH, don’t presume that Kink or, especially, Lora Lei is covered by insurance for this. If Kink really was operating in violation of OSHA regulations on the shoot, Kink’s insurers could very well argue that they’re not responsible.

    More importantly, Loralei may want to dig out her contract with Kink and review the terms and conditions. I have no idea how Kink deals with its freelancers/work-for-hires, but in the mainstream media, where I have considerable experience, the contract you sign as a freelancer specifically states that you are responsible for defending yourself in a lawsuit and that you hold the network/publishing company harmless should a suit arise.

    Now, I’ve been involved in lawsuits where my co-plaintiffs were a major print media publisher and in another, one of the big three television networks. In both instances, they paid for my defense, including my personal expenses for travel and the like. However, they did not reimburse me for time lost from work defending the lawsuit or sitting through a trial, while my co-defendants continued to receive their paychecks. More importantly, I had no say over the trial strategy or protection if they decided to throw me under the bus. If I wanted to have my own trial strategy, I would have had to get and pay for my own attorney.

    Again, I have no idea what Kink’s contract looks like, but if I were Loralei, I’d be taking a very close read.

  25. mharris127

    A settlement would save weeks of Peter’s and Lorelei’s time dealing with depositions and trial. If this can be settled for a couple hundred thousand dollars it may be worth it for them to settle just because of the hassle of defending a lawsuit. Lawsuits are settled for “nuisance value” all of the time and nowadays that can be $200K especially in CA where trials can take forever and lawsuits can drag on for years. However, I suspect this is a ploy by Michael Weinstein to run Kink out of CA and Cameron is just a pawn in this. Assuming that is the case the plaintiffs will not settle for any amount of money, they want a show trial to flex Weinfuck’s AIDS infested dick muscles and force the porn industry out of the state (and eventually the country).

    If Cameron is willing to settle, willing to agree to a statement that the settlement is not an admission of guilt by the defendants and she is willing to settle for nuisance value (about $200K maximum) that route is worth Peter and Lorelei taking. However, I strongly suspect Weinfuck is bankrolling this lawsuit and using Cameron for his nefarious motives, if that is the case I don’t see a settlement taking place.

  26. LurkingReader

    @Jilted

    Yes I recall that case “Kinda curious why it isn’t going through Workers Comp like the 98 case that dragged on over ten years.” The primary defense in that case was employee status and when that didn’t work they tried and failed claiming plaintiff lifestyle more probable than the set/event at issue.

    Secondary to the performers claim was issue of who was the producer aka point of accountability responsible for the penalties associated with failing to carry WC.

    Curiosity still reigns as to why this case didn’t go thru WC as I haven’t had time available till this evening to get quiet & read current lawsuit.

  27. jilted

    Mharris,
    I was just wondering, out of whose ass do you pull this stuff you’re writing, or do you just sit down at the computer, let your fingers do the walking, and make it up as you go along? Its hilarious how you talk about Peter and Lorilei, as if you actually know them or know the first thing about their business practices other than watching their edited material.

    And not only will Kinks business practices be under scruting, the method on which they gather their health and safety records, ie APHSS will also come under scrutiny. Dont for one second think that AHF is going to ignore the releasing of confidential medical records to third parties without a specific waiver, as required by law, containing the sournce name,the individual who will recieve the information, the exact address(electronic or brick and mortar), who handles,who stores, and all the compliance issues associated. Look for a quick settlement offer,and a quicker NO THANKS from AHF.

    ONLY (not) IN PORN

  28. LurkingReader

    The existence of this lawsuit says this case isn’t going thru Workers Comp. WC comes w advantage that if plaintiff employee prevails they get their ongoing medical, wages and attorney expenses whether employer paid into ‘pool’ or not. The WC ‘pool’ effectively acts as deep pockets protecting society and workers from the economic burdens of workplace injuries. The downside WC is the defendant on behalf of the employer so there is no possibility of punitive damages because WC isn’t the bad guy who caused or allowed the harm to happen. If this were to go through WC Paragraphs 1-72 might remain the same w a few tossed in re WC related stuff but p73 would not exist. Only In Porn is why I expected this might not be as simple as the attractive option of punitive damages from a deep pocket employer.

    Reading the suit affirmed the initial gut feeling that OSHA stuff will be front and center of the suit. The biggest role I see the OSHA stuff playing has to do with how porn resists regulation and business standards in what amounts to a game of words. BT is spot on with Lorelei Lee contract. Nearly every paragraph she is mentioned in also relates to years of wrangling over industry lingo vs legal and regulatory terms. The words in CAPS are part of what makes me say this won’t settle quickly or quietly. BT is better suited than I to explain the process, form and roles the dueling footnotes/motions will take as this plays out.

    The claim starts with the ‘Kink Defendants’ as a reminder of the ongoing battles over the definition of ‘PRODUCER with respect to porn vs mainstream productions where it is more established. PRODUCER in porn lawsuits and regulatory policies is even more elusive than EMPLOYEE status is in labor cases.

    Paragraph 3 corporate “form unknown” stands out as an expectation this might be a loophole challenge to the ‘Kink Defendants’ relationships along with the knots tying them up all over the 46 page document.

    Not sure I’ll know soon but I’m curious why the Agency contacted by Kink was left out as a named defendant. Paragraph 27 had me wondering who ‘assured’ Cameron Bay until the assurance was revisited in P. 84

    P29 Kink didn’t HIRE a DIRECTOR Lorelei Lee was GUEST DIRECTOR in dual role as Lead PERFORMER. (MODEL is used elsewhere in claim also a disputed term)

    P33 “SUBSPACE” and CONSENT
    P35 EXTRAS penetrated
    P41 (is a doozy) ‘encouraged to INTERACT with MEMBERS of the public and got paid extra to do so’ ($100 per member)
    (CONSENT …condoms, contract ?? galore re INTERACTION, was $100 per untested participant speaking, touching, or penetration required. A Kink Defendant knot is the set location as a lease relationship, no mention whether the untested MEMBERS of the public are there as club members or how they came to be there as interactive PARTICIPANTs)
    P39 says a whole bunch of ‘admitted’ stuff w no reference to when where or how those admissions took place.
    P56 Acworth & Stabile comments re OSHA
    P58 (starts w LA condom law reference) while California Health & Safety Codes do require condoms in the entire state, the law does not require condom use to be enforced in San Francisco
    P61 promote Lee from GUEST DIRECTOR to DIRECTOR

    The terms all relate to one or more of the following listed ongoing unsettled legislative or regulatory issues Acworth isn’t going to quietly walk away from. I don’t see Kink or others with a stake in the outcome & deep pockets letting this settle quietly w the potential it could be used as a concession of defeat on these issues either.

    Pending appeal of 78k fines for OSHA violations
    Applicability of OSHA 5193
    OSHA 5193.1 not yet thru its development & adoption processes
    Pending ballot initiative by AHF
    And a zillion other things not on my radar.

    PS …p39 and absence of any reference to expense or payment of medical expenses for boob injury stand out but I can’t say they’re related.

  29. LurkingReader

    Hey MHarris,

    Not knowing the participants or having a fiscal stake or emotional connection comes with the advantage of reading the allegations in the light random jurors are likely to.

    I look at case and see Does 1-50 with the expectation that this might relate to any named or unnamed individual described in a role that might might have contributed to the damages the plaintiff is seeking compensation for. IG paragraph 37 “Upon information and belief there were also one or two staff members if KINK Defendants present and dedicated to management of the July 31, 2013 shoot”

    For all I know Donna may be that employee and your understanding of her role is what’s being referenced her as a factor to be considered to determine the merits and validity of the suit. As for Lorelei Lee look at paragraph 29 Kink didn’t hire a director ….

    It’s easy to see how it looks like Lee is being picked on or singled out, she isn’t. This isn’t about her it’s about her ROLE and activities as an employee or agent of KINK Defendants.

    The case won’t be thrown out of court because you or anyone lose
    says stuff like “everyone that had genital/oral/anal contact with her that day tested negative for HIV and her infection seems to be the main basis to her (or more accurately Weinfuck’s) lawsuit.”

    Within the first claim and incorporated into the rest is p71 “Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of physical harm when she was exposed to and/or contracted HIV while performing at the July 31, 2013 shoot.”

    She doesn’t claim any paid performers on that set was HIV positive. Her claim targets the 50 untested extras.

    Kink no longer shoots public disgrace events at the armory. Big clue one or more of the allegations about the untested extras has more merit/validity than Kink or its most ardent supporters is expected to say out loud.

    Spewing weinfuck diatribes and criminal defenses to a civil suit are like taping a kick me sign on your name. They also cause us to overlook, ignore or dismiss what might be valuable insight such as your understanding of Donna’s role at the shoot.

    Nor will Cameron Bay be ordered to pay anyone’s defense costs

  30. LurkingReader

    Oops timed out on trying to edit…

    Lee is a named defendant because there is an expectation that Kink might claim she was responsible in some way to cover their ass.

    Last is that the case isn’t about how Bay got HIV, it’s about how she could have gotten HIV that day.

  31. BT

    So after blathering on about process, etc., I think what’s exciting about this suit is the blood in the water aspect of it. As a consumer of porn, I am really not a fan of the kinds of things that Kink sells. I am a First Amendment guy; if performers are willing to perform, if consumers are willing to consumer, its all done in a safe manner, and it doesn’t violate the law, well, God Bless America. That said, I think Kink is terrible for porn – personal opinion. Understand that lots of folks disagree with me.

    Mostly, I’m not convinced that Kink operates in a safe manner – and that it appears to exhibit to the extreme the attitude of much in porn. Again, personal opinion. I think what happened to Cameron Bay was one of those “its only a matter of time” kind of things.

    At the same time, porn as an industry is like the monster in a horror film that keeps coming back, even though you burn it alive, run over it with a tank, shoot it with a bazooka, and cut off its head with a silver coated sword dipped in Holy water. I’ll be shocked if Kink doesn’t settle this for a lot more money than $200,000 – this isn’t a nuisance suit and it’ll cost Kink a lot more than that to take it to trial let alone what they risk in damages if they lose. At the same time, it wouldn’t surprise me if porn goes to trial and, once again, dodges a bullet.

  32. mharris127

    Didn’t say I knew them other than what they post on their respective social websites and interviews. Lorelei’s (and Donna’s now that she is retired) in particular is very informative (and I am sure Cameron/AHF and her attorney are reading as well). Lorelei just finished a five month European tour that likely cost her $20K plus as well as possibly five months lost wages (I admittedly have to laugh at excesses of some porn people). Also, Kink’s business practices are featured on at least ten media articles not written by Kink staff.

    Peter seems to be pretty intelligent, I think he knows he better not lie about how he runs his business because of the possibility of what is happening now — a disgruntled former performer and a moralistic prick that wants porn run out of the country using the legal system to do their bidding. He also seems sincere when he is discussing his studio. I wasn’t there but I think mistakes were made at that Public Disgrace shoot that day. Cameron’s tit implant was damaged somehow (media reports and the lawsuit claim different types of damage), accusations of (essentially) rape have been made and we have Weinstein either claiming or insinuating (depending on the day) that Cameron caught HIV on that set. I agree that Kink (or State Fund) should pay to fix her breast and the associated expenses. I also agree that 50 untested public (assuming they were untested, I am not clear on whether that was actually the case) should not be making genital/other orifice contact with talent (according to Kink’s policy statement untested public did not, contact was restricted to essentially fondling and light slapping) — I guess that will come out one way or the other in deposition/trial if it gets that far.

    If it were me the recordings of this scene would have been erased and the physical media burned to eliminate any video evidence of anything wrong the minute Cameron tested positive for HIV just in case. I think that Peter is more forthright on that type of matter than I am so I suspect the recordings are still somewhere in the Armory. If so, that may cost Lorelei at minimum if the rape allegations are proven (I suspect that when Cameron/Weinstein lose their case their next move is to the SF District Attorney for criminal charges). If I were trying this case I would focus on the (accused) rape rather than Does 1-50, her HIV and her breast implant, she would get much farther doing so as if the accusation is true (which I doubt but let’s consider the possibility for a minute) she could actually have a case. Focusing on the HIV infection will just cloud the case and likely cause it to be dismissed before trial as it seems like the rape accusation was added as an afterthought. The video will tell all on that particular accusation, the interview and paperwork will likely state no fisting and if the video shows Lorelei with four fingers in Cameron’s pussy preparing to fist her (that is the only fathomable reason four fingers from the same hand would be in a pussy at the same time during sex other than to fish out a condom — it would be easy to tell the difference) than Lorelei does not have a viable defense in a criminal case. I don’t know for sure whether Donna or Peter would have culpability in that case criminally in California (in my home state Donna would as an accessory for not stopping it whereas Peter would not unless he was actually on set that day). I may look for that video on the Public Disgrace site but I would think for Lorelei’s sake that Peter made sure it was either never posted or removed well before this lawsuit was filed (although the rape accusation was not likely even thought of until this insane lawsuit was actually filed the HIV accusations and the tit implant issue being litigated had to have been considerations as soon as Cameron was diagnosed although maybe in a manner more of concern to State Fund than to Kink).

    If I were Lorelei and the attempted fisting actually took place I would be very concerned. As for Kink, this is likely going to take up a lot of time and legal expense but I think Cameron will lose assuming Peter doesn’t settle for nuisance value as it is cheaper than potentially (even if that potential is low) defending the case in court all the way to trial. If Cameron wins at trial I suspect it will be on the rape accusation alone.

    One more thing — $100 for each contact with the public in the bar that day — WOW! That could have easily cost Kink $5K just on fondling by the public alone if there were actually anywhere near 50 people actually there that day!

  33. mharris127

    BT, I quoted that $200K figure as that is what nuisance settlement offers seem to top out at in my area. Whether it is $200K or $500K it would be a settlement to get rid of a nuisance. I agree that the defense of this would cost upwards of $1 million and take a couple of years (it hurts Kink that California is known for long, drawn out trials). The rape accusation against Lorelei would also lead me to think about settling to protect her from possible criminal prosecution assuming that accusation has any possible basis in fact (a gag order would accomplish that but that costs money).

  34. mharris127

    Jilted, you can add some Juju Beans and a pitcher of margaritas to that order. I would love to be a fly on the wall of any depositions that take place, Cameron’s/AHF’s attorneys would be entertaining at the very least as well as Peter figuratively wiping them through the carpet on 80% of their questions. I have already said that IMO the rape accusations are the biggest concern here. PASS is a lesser concern since actual medical information is not transmitted (although Kink requiring paper VD test results and making a copy of them for record keeping could theoretically be an issue, not requiring this would be an even bigger issue for Workman’s Comp reasons so I would think they do require this).

    If this does go to trial look for almost every Kink performer from the past ten years being paraded onto the witness stand to testify to the good working conditions at Kink as well as former directors and executives (in that case get me a case of those Juju Beans and a tanker truck full of margaritas). That tactic alone would extend the trial by a week or more as well as cement in the jury’s minds that Kink is not the bad actor that Cameron/AHF accuses them of being. I know Cameron/AHF cannot come up with the sheer number of witnesses corroborating their testimony that Kink can. This is a natural outgrowth of the plaintiffs pushing the working conditions angle in their lawsuit.

  35. BT

    Hopefully, he didn’t erase the tape. If nothing inappropriate happened, the tape will work for Kink’s defense. The only reason to destroy it would be that bad stuff happened – and destroying it will look like an admission of guilt. What you really wonder is whether they kept all of the tape – the unedited shoot – and what it shows.

    No judge will allow Kink to parade every happy talent from the last ten years before the jury, nor will a judge allow Bay’s attorney to put 50 John Does on the witness stand. They will limit testimony on both sides – which always happens.

    Now, as to depositions, that’s another matter. Typically, both sides would hire investigators to do initial work, much like a police investigator or a reporter. They’ll talk to everyone who will talk to them and from that figure out who to get an affidavit from and who to depose. That’s a matter of time and money.

    If they lose a civil suit, its highly unlikely anyone is going to the SF PD to allege rape since there’s a higher level of proof required at the criminal level. If you can’t win in civil court, its highly unlikely you can win in criminal court. It usually works the other way – if you win in criminal court, you can certainly win in civil court and even if you lose in criminal court, you may prevail in civil court because of the lower standard of proof.

  36. mharris127

    BT, you would be correct if Cameron had competent counsel (who if she believed the accusations would have directed Cameron to call the police immediately) and their filing didn’t allege rape that wasn’t referred to the DA. However, this lawsuit is mainly because a couple of people are pissed at the industry as a whole. Kink is just the first in many fall guys if they lose (or settle) — IIRC Mike makes that point well. If Kink wins I suspect Cameron and Weinstein will be doubly pissed and start throwing criminal accusations at Kink and Lorelei in particular hoping they can get retribution somehow (whether the charges can be proven or not).

    It does make it look bad that the plaintiffs are accusing Lorelei of rape and nothing has been filed at the police station or the DA’s office. This makes it look like Cameron is lying in her lawsuit — any reasonable rape victim would go to the police as soon as possible, not keep it quiet for two years then file a civil suit with that allegation. I feel sorry for Lorelei and the situation she is currently in where rape allegations are being leveled against her and the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has not run out (if I understand correctly the statute will run out in 2020). All it takes is Cameron to get pissed off even worse and decide to call the police or DA to file charges against her and whether Lorelei is guilty or not she gets arrested, jailed and ends up paying out at least $100K just to get bailed out of jail until trial. SF City/County jails are also not the greatest environment for a woman to begin with whether she gets bailed out almost immediately or sits there until the trial ends. Most DAs would prosecute almost any rape charge and leave the guilt/innocence factor to the judge and jury — especially if there is video evidence of the activity (which there very well could be). The question here criminally would be consent, not whether the act took place.

  37. LurkingReader

    I’m going back and reading the 46 pages for a third time to see how the hell people are turning business practice nitpicking into the returning monster soundtrack hanging criminal rape theories all over the place.

    Look at it this way, Cameron Bay went to her job manufacturing and processing sex for consumer consumption. Something went wrong and she claims the KINK Defendants were at fault. The only difference between Cameron going to work at the armory that day and a guy with a catastrophic injury on a deep sea fishing boat is the later has more established labor regulations.

    The boat owner is the Kink Defendants with Lee named as the captain of record on deck for the whole trip which leaves the question of who was at the helm. The limits list and four finger Fisting amounts to a greenhorn pulling a full pot on their 1st day as one part of a negligence pattern to back up claim that one of the hundreds of poorly maintained improperly stacked pots fell causing the injury. No telling which pot did the deed but you can bet the lawsuit would include the broken latch in the gallery as part of the negligence pattern list.

    If this were a class action it would be settled yesterday as preferable to risking the boat. Those four pending regulatory issues are the equivalent of a class action putting the boat aka armory at risk. The rest of the fleet owners know how much a deal or admission will take off their bottom line, NFW will they ignore their vested bottom line interests.

    This suit was timed for the long haul to coincide with the timeline of 5193.1 and the ballot initiative the industry is fighting like hell to keep off the 2016 roster. It didn’t take a year to write this lawsuit up and if it was about a quick payday why wait a year to file with the final sands falling in the hourglass?

    Even if Kink made a generous cash offer to make it go away I don’t see it happening. If Cameron Bay settles for the quick bucks the career she’s trying to build as an advocate is sunk, if she sticks it out more time to hone the training and lifestyle her handlers are helping her with. The helpful transformation to polish her Sept 2013 quivering snot bawling performance to the confidence to run the AB1576 ball for a touchdown a year later made the investment into this lawsuit worth considering. Her continuing commitment to her transformation made it a go.

    Whether the lawsuit turns out to be a win lose or draw down the line this post is titled correctly, Rod Daily isn’t a listed plaintiff in the suit but he’s going to ride her coat tails in a working relationship. His job is show face poster boy nodding in the right places as she speaks before policy makers who probably didn’t do more than skim the summary their harried staff stuck on the pile.

  38. BT

    MH – you have more insight into the competency of Cameron Bay’s counsel – all I can do is read their lawsuit and its well written – and into Cameron Bay’s motives. I personally have never spoken to her, so I don’t have any insight to why she did what she did or when she did it.

    The only point I’ve been trying to make is that motive, personality, and politics, which seem to be very important to you, have almost nothing to do with a lawsuit at this stage.

    Kink’s lawyers will have 30 days to file a response, Bay’s lawyers will have 10 or 15 days – I don’t know the rules in California – to answer Kink’s response and, if the judge doesn’t dismiss, we’ll be off to the races.

    If there’s nothing technically wrong with Bay’s filing – if they filed within the statute of limitations, if they didn’t misstate the law, if they’re in the right jurisdiction – it’ll probably go forward.

    If Kink’s lawyers say, hey, this is BS because what she says didn’t happen, this is what really happened, the suit will definitely go forward because facts are in dispute that need to be resolved by litigation.

    At this stage, it’s really that simple.

    Once they get into discovery, Cameron’s personal and professional sex life and medical records will be investigated as will what happened on that set that day and leading up to it – the way Kink runs its sets and business in general.

    Note that Rod Daily is not part of this suit. For those who contend that we all know Bay got HIV from Rod Daily because he did gay porn for Kink, this is where and how Daily can be brought into the case – someone does an investigation into his professional sex life and whether he gave it to Cameron. Sounds great, right?

    Just remember that can be a double-edged sword because if he was infected on a Kink set and infected Cameron, Kink may still be responsible.

    I’m not an investigator on this case; I have no idea how or where either Daily or Bay contracted HIV. All I know is that even if she got it from Daily and not from the set, that doesn’t necessarily bode well for Kink.

  39. mharris127

    My (limited) understanding is Rod Daily performed in gay porn for a lot more than Kink (actually I would actually have to search the site to see whether he ever performed for Kink’s gay sites, being straight I don’t pay much attention to gay porn). I do agree that if somehow Cameron could prove that Rod was infected on a Kink set then Peter is in a lot of trouble. However, as Kink does not test talent in their gay division (other than Treasure Island Media which does not protect their talent from VD in any manner my understanding is the gay side of the biz uses condoms instead — a stupid decision IMO) that would be very hard to prove. If this case does gain traction and Rod Daily becomes a central focal point maybe gay porn will finally start requiring VD testing as the straight side of the biz does now.

    I do think Cameron was infected by her then boyfriend Rod Daily. How he was infected in the first place is in question. You make a good point that I did not think of — whether Rod was infected at Kink or not (see Jilted, I admit I am not perfect). At a minimum witnesses of his scenes would have to be called to testify as to whether a condom broke during any of his scenes at Kink. If a condom broke then Cameron and Weinstein could be off to the races although the next question in that case would be why isn’t Rod suing as well (although my understanding is some gay companies serosort — and there is TIM which revels in producing HIV positive scenes so Rod could still be performing to this day). If there was ejaculation outside of a condom in/near the anal cavity, eyes, nose or mouth that could also be an issue (I don’t know how that works in gay porn nor do I wish to watch some to find out). Rod’s other scenes within the 2-3 months of Cameron’s infection would also have to be analyzed and the participants called to testify as to the same questions. If this is the case I would be more willing to settle the case for a substantial amount of money if I were Peter.

    I still think the rape allegation has the potential to turn this case on to its head at least as far as Lorelei’s liability. If that allegation can be proven (the raw footage would be key here) she could be in a world of hurt. As I said, there are two reasons to insert four fingers from the same hand into a pussy — to fish out a condom/sponge or to fist her. I have a hard time believing Lorelei is that calloused or stupid as to attempt to fist someone not consenting to the act but I guess anything is possible considering evidently alcohol was flowing freely on set and she could have been heavily intoxicated at the time (although in my personal experience I was a very heavy drinker for years and know I would never have raped anyone even six sheets to the wind — take that as you will). I personally would have a hard time allowing those impaired from alcohol/drugs to perform on any set I was directing, I have had this discussion with a couple of active porn directors over the years as well and they agreed with me that an alcoholically impaired performer or director is almost career suicidal.

  40. LurkingReader

    Good catch, even more intriguing seeing list of defendants and Kink atty’s. It’s a personal Injury diversity case. Will have to wait till I’m at PC cuz California Northern doc formatting doesn’t like to display on iPad.

  41. jilted

    John Doe “defendants” are ALWAYS listed in these types of suits. They are added because they may not be known at this time, they may or may not exist at this time, and may never exist. It is simply routine procedure for these types of suits, certainly nothing to get your undies in a bundle over, and make wild speculation on what this means. In this case it may be the audience participants, it may be members of AHPS or FSC, or it may be Dr Miao, or Sixto, or most likely it is nobody at this point, after discovery names may be added.

    And I am pretty sure that the multi million dollar AHF is providing more than adequately qualified attorneys. LOL at whoever even questions the competency of an AHF paid attorney.

  42. mharris127

    Jilted, you may wish to rethink that LOL. A criminal conviction would almost guarantee winning the civil suit at least as it pertains to Lorelei (who along with her “husband” Tomcat likely have millions in assets considering Tomcat worked as a full-time director for Kink for at least 14 years, the last 5-7 making a half million a year plus — all attachable due to CA community property statutes, Lorelei has also directed full-time for Kink for almost two years at $500K plus per year so Lorelei going to prison would not mean Cameron would go unpaid as even with the most lavish lifestyle they should have several million dollars in assets between them). That is why most file (or more accurately have the DA file) criminal charges first and file the civil suit either after conviction or as close to the end of the statute of limitations as possible if the criminal case drags on too long. Assuming the allegations of rape are truthful any attorney that does otherwise — especially considering Lorelei and her husband are likely relatively wealthy and can pay any likely judgement against her whether she goes to prison or not — is five Hamms (a Michigan brand of shitty beer) short of a six pack. The fact that this attorney did not make sure the DA was contacted and charges filed against Lorelei immediately upon taking the case tells me that either Cameron’s attorney is incompetent and needs both his bar card and Cameron herself shoved up his ass without lube or the rape accusation is a lie meant to cloud the issue and play to the jury as well as make Kink look bad to help get the AHF’s ballot initiative passed. I suspect the latter but still question his competence as such a lie can backfire badly at trial assuming the plaintiff’s attorneys are competent themselves.

    The only fathomable legal reason to lie about a rape in this lawsuit is to help AHF pass their insane ban porn in CA voter initiative by allowing the lawsuit (and specifically the rape accusation) to be used to denigrate the industry — which would make Cameron a pawn in this and placing her attorney at risk of losing his bar card as he is supposed to represent her (acting in her best interests) and not AHF no matter who is paying him. Cameron would also be at risk of not getting a dime from this based on the lie alone whether the rest of the lawsuit is accurate or not (although in this case much of the lawsuit is likely bold-faced lies). If this gets to deposition under oath (I have been deposed in lawsuits — fortunately not as a defendant — before and had to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God) and Cameron testifies in the affirmative to what is in this lawsuit she could very well be facing felony perjury and prison (which would be sweet justice IMO) and her attorney the loss of his bar card and a felony conviction for suborning perjury. In my home state someone falsely accusing a person of raping her is also highly libelous/slanderous and could theoretically get the accuser (as well as Cameron’s attorney in this case as an accessory) sued themselves although Cameron may not have any attachable assets to make that worth Lorelei’s time and money.

  43. BT

    Lurking – I read the four fingers section the same way you read it. I do no believe that Cameron Bay is alleging that she was raped or that something criminal took place in the four fingers episode. This is a civil complaint and not a criminal complaint.

    I think what it goes to in the context of this complaint is painting a picture of negligence on the part of Kink – again, I’m not alleging anything, just trying to explain how this lawsuit is crafted and what Cameron Bay is alleging.

    She is saying that she was injured on this set because Kink played fast and loose with the rules; that she was told X and signed up for X but was subjected to Y and that no one listened to her even when she complained.

    The bloody penis is an example of this.

    The fact that the onlookers were encouraged or allowed to group and penetrate her is an example.

    And the fact that she created a “no list” that included no fisting that was ignored even when she asked the dom to stop (I’m not fisting you; its only four fingers) is an example.

    She’s not trying to make a case for rape; she’s making a case for misrepresentation; taking the job under false pretenses; and then ending up on a set where there was allegedly very little regard for the safety or wishes of the talent.

    Again, I’m not saying any of this happened; I’m saying that’s what the lawsuit alleges. Cameron’s attorney will have to prove this.

    What Lee has to concern herself with is if Kink says it is not responsible for what happened on the shoot because Lee was the producer/director that day. She’s an independent contractor and we expected her to comply with worker safety regulations. Not our responsibility. I can only relate this to mainstream – in every contract a freelance writer signs with a mainstream media house, there are hold harmless clauses that state that the writer is independent, takes full responsibility for the accuracy of the work, and agrees even to defend the media organization if sued.

    In practicality, whoever publishes something, even a reprint that originally appeared somewhere else (let’s say that Reader’s Digest publishes an article that originally appeared in SPorts Illustrated), is responsible for the work. Porn seems to exist in its own universe, but if this were mainstream, Kink would be as responsible for anything that happened on that set as the contractors it hired to run the set.

  44. BT

    Mharris – you are misreading the lawsuit. They do not claim rape. They claim that she created a no list and that it was not only ignored, when she asked them to stop, they argued semantics – we’re not fisting you, its only 4 fingers. Its a pattern of what happened on the set that day, along with ignoring her question about putting a condom on a bloody penis that they ignored before plunging it back in her mouth.

    This is a negligence suit, not a criminal action, and needs to be read in that light.

    To your last point, I’m sorry, but you don’t understand how the law works. You state that in your home state, someone falsely accusing a person of raping her is highly libelous etc.

    Under the law, you cannot libel someone in a lawsuit. People go to court all the time alleging that Person A did something wrong to Person B, that could be considered libelous or slanderous if you broadcast it in the neighborhood or printed it in the newspaper. Child abuse is a good example. Person A alleges that her uncle Person B molested her. If she spread that rumor around the neighborhood or went to the newspaper and got a reporter to write it and it turned out to be false – or, not provable – she could be sued by her uncle for slander or libel.

    If she alleges it in a lawsuit, she is immune from slander and libel. That’s just the way it works. If, she loses the case and it turns out that she lied to her attorney when she alleged she was molested, then, she could get sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit or malicious prosecution. But she cannot be sued just because she filed a lawsuit and couldn’t prove her case.

    Given that Cameron Bay had a bloody penis repeatedly shoved in her mouth; was slapped so hard on the breasts that she required corrective surgery; was penetrated with four fingers after she asked them to stop; and contracted HIV from somewhere …… doesn’t mean she will win the lawsuit. But, it does mean that it’s highly unlikely that if she loses, someone would be able to file a countersuit. She has a legitimate reason to bring the suit, even if she loses.

  45. mharris127

    Ignoring a “no” list where genital contact is concerned is prosecuted the same as rape. Forcible unwanted and unpermitted contact with the pussy or ass involving penetration is first degree criminal sexual conduct (otherwise known as rape), tying someone up and fisting her against her wishes is definitely first degree rape, no question about it legally. There are two reasons to insert four fingers into a pussy — fish a broken condom or sponge out of it and to fist someone. Even Lorelei isn’t claiming she was fishing a condom or sponge out of Cameron’s pussy, therefore (if Cameron’s claim is to be believed) Lorelei was getting ready to fist her. That is enough to sustain a forcible rape charge in any jurisdiction including San Francisco. Whether you believe Cameron’s claims is on you (I question them at a minimum) but a competent attorney would have made sure the criminal charges were filed against Lorelei ASAP as a conviction would greatly assist in Cameron winning her case — and the DA would file those charges and let the judge and jury sort it out at trial if Cameron went that route — anything else would cost him his next election and give him a bad reputation with the SF City/County general populace as being soft on rapists.

    If Lorelei didn’t rape Cameron that day (I tend to believe she did not) I feel very sorry for her. She is likely facing arrest, time in jail being booked, fingerprinted and her mugshot taken as well as a likely criminal trial. I suspect the judge in the case will refer the rape accusation to the DA himself after he reads the lawsuit (assuming Cameron’s attorney doesn’t do so as a conviction would greatly benefit his client — and this isn’t just an AHF ploy to cloud the case and give them ammo to get their ban porn in CA voter initiative passed next year — and the judge figures that out, I suspect the judge is not as informed as to the AHF’s tactics so I think the DA will be hearing from either the judge or Cameron’s attorney very soon) and that Lorelei will be arrested within days.

  46. mharris127

    Cameron may be immune from libel accusing rape in the lawsuit but not if she accuses her of rape anywhere else. The AHF will make sure that accusation is made in any number of press conferences, that is not immune from a libel lawsuit. Read between the lines on this, BT. Unless everyone wants to read a twenty page diatribe on this from me I have to leave some explanations out of my posts and assume people can figure out the rest on their own.

  47. LurkingReader

    @BT

    From the get go your comments aptly point out this is a suit against Kink’s business practices. Which adds to confusion of how people could read this and push a detail to support the 11 actual claims as a rape allegation.

    Porn does try to exist in its own world. I think that is a big part of why Lee is a named vs doe defendant until the court sorts out matters of fact to determine if she was captain at the helm or honorary captain on deck.

  48. BT

    Jilted – there’s another lawsuit – John Doe v Kink and Kinkmen.com – that does not appear to involve Cameron Bay. Since its John Doe, there’s no way to know whether it’s Rod Daily, but since they’re suing Kinkmen, I’m making an assumption that its a male performer.

    I did not compare the law firm on that case to the one in Cameron’s case, but someone else posting did. Right now, you can’t look up the case on the court records unless you have an account. Maybe someone more savvy than I can find it.

  49. LurkingReader

    MHarris,

    You said…
    “Ignoring a “no” list where genital contact is concerned is prosecuted the same as rape”
    “That is enough to sustain a forcible rape charge in any jurisdiction including San Francisco.”

    This is NOT a criminal matter. You are not helping kink or Lee, you and everyone else spilling digital ink with similar arguments are helping Cameron Bay by adding to the pile of what she seeks punitive damages for.

    If Bay wanted to pursue any of these things criminally there is no logic to pursuing them in a civil suit first. Before you drag out lower burden of proof in a civil process think it through. IF the criminal conviction you’re so convinced is a certainty would help Bay’s case why didn’t her attorney ask the DA to press charges and add it as a related pending matter?

  50. LurkingReader

    BT,

    Don’t know about savvy but I have a PACER account. Will turn on PC to grab a copy of complaint & forward it to Mike.

  51. LurkingReader

    Definitely not savvy…California state courts don’t display as easy to save PDF.
    Perhaps random guy knows the tricks I don’t to get docs saved/shared.

    Heads up It’s a doozy from “Attorneys for Defendants, CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PETER ACWORTH and HOGAN KARL aka VAN DARKHOLME”

  52. mharris127

    I think I have stated my position clearly. However, my problem here is that my gut tells me Cameron and her attorney are lying about the “fisting” without permission allegations. In fewer words I think they are lying. The lack of criminal charges in this case cements my opinion. Remember, filing false criminal charge allegations is a felony in itself — which makes the lack of them very telling IMO.

    If by chance Lorelei did rape Cameron she needs to be prosecuted. I just don’t think she actually did and the accusation of this in the lawsuit is just a ploy AHF can use to convince voters to vote for their run porn out of CA ballot initiative and a despicable one at that. Keeping quiet about this doesn’t help Kink at all, actually it would hurt the company if Cameron’s likely lies slip through the cracks and get publicized in the lead-up to November 2016 if voters buy the likely lies.

  53. LurkingReader

    “However, my problem here is that my gut tells me Cameron and her attorney are lying about the “fisting” without permission allegations. In fewer words I think they are lying”

    Yes you have clearly stated this position many times. To the point that were this case televised on court TV I’m certain you’d be disappointed at how much attention the no list gets as a means to establish a pattern of negligence vs the ‘truth’ you seek.

    The suit claims Kink retained the list. If Kink retained the list and didn’t ditch it assuming the post shoot videotaped interview was sufficient to CYA; My guess is that 100 questions will be asked about the list 99 will focus on things unrelated to whether a thumb is required to be considered fisting. Stuff like who creates the list? Is it a preprinted form with check boxes or a blank paper the performer writes their limits on? If it is a Kink created document does it include definitions for terms such as ‘fisting’? What happens to the list once it’s created? Is the list brought to the set? Who on the set is responsible for adherence to the list?

    Reality is with respect to this suit there is no rape allegation as you’re describing it. If it were about alleging rape the 4 finger vs thumb fisting isn’t it…the penetration by untested public participants would be. Sub-space and consent still no “rape” allegations.

  54. BT

    MHarris: I admire your tenacity and I can tell that you feel strongly about this case. Unfortunately, you’re just wrong on the law –

    First, as I and others on this thread have noted, this is personal injury lawsuit rooted in negligence and fraud. The word rape does not appear in the complaint. I haven’t read any of the comments on other sites, but on Mike’s site, the only person throwing around the word rape is you.

    With regard to libel, you posted above: “Cameron may be immune from libel accusing rape in the lawsuit but not if she accuses her of rape anywhere else. The AHF will make sure that accusation is made in any number of press conferences, that is not immune from a libel lawsuit. Read between the lines on this, BT.”

    Unfortunately, you’re still just completely wrong. A lawsuit is a public issue. As such, reporters, commentators, advocacy organizations, and even people in the streets – like those of us in this thread – are given a lot of leeway to discuss the proceedings and particulars of a lawsuit. Heck, it’s the reason that people try to get their cases sealed – they don’t want us discussing the ugly details.

    So, a reporter writing about this case is allowed to write about all the ugly accusations made by Bay and her attorneys, even if they turn out to be 100% unproved in court, without fear of a lawsuit. They’re immune. I won’t bore you with all the details, but I have personal experience in this. Years ago, I was sued by an individual who had been accused of some pretty nasty things in a civil suit (just like this) and won because I wrote about the case – his theory was that since he won the case, I was libeling him by writing about the accusations. The case was tossed in a heartbeat because we showed in our response to the lawsuit that everything I had been written was part of the public record. I was just reporting on the facts of the case.

    Similarly, let’s say Cameron gives a press conference, you’re in the audience, and you see it as your opportunity to get her to talk about rape. So you ask her the following question: Cameron, what you describe in the lawsuit sounds like forcible rape and you didn’t go to the cops. Is that because you’re lying? She would be perfectly within her rights to say, That’s not what we say in the complaint, but it sure felt like rape at the time.

    An editorial writer or commentator would be within their rights to write, “If Cameron Bay’s allegations are true, this illustrates everything that’s wrong with pornography today. She describes being tied up, beaten so badly that one of her breasts required corrective surgery, being penetrated against her will by a room full of strangers, and “fisted” even though she wrote on her “no list” before the shoot that she didn’t want to be fisted. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like rape to me. It’s an ugly industry.” That’s because opinion writers are given wide latitude as long as they don’t make up facts.

    Which brings us to AHF. Under the laws around public debate, AHF probably can’t get in front of a microphone and say: “Cameron Bay was raped on a Kink.com set” and leaves it at that. Since rape is not part of this lawsuit, I have no idea why they would say that, but you seem to think that’s their motivation. So, in that example, I’d agree with you. It’s probably a step too far.

    However, if AHF gets in front of a microphone and says something like, “You may be aware of a lawsuit filed by Cameron Bay against Kink. Like her, we believe they dealt with her in a negligent and fraudulent way, and we believe she contracted HIV on that set. That’s the reason we advocate for condoms. But its worse than that. If you read her allegations, in our opinion, they fit the definition of rape in California, because too many things happened against her will that day, according to the complaint.” …. they would be completely within their First Amendment rights, assuming that her allegations fit the definition of rape in California. They could even say, “if her allegations are true, it’s like she was raped on that set because things happened against her will.”

    I have not read any posting about this case on any other site, so I have no idea what supporters of Kink or the industry are writing about this case or Bay and her attorneys. What I do know is what’s been written on this site. The irony is that the commentary that comes closest to fitting the legal definition of libel are the things you’ve written about Bay and her attorneys, alleging as if you have insider knowledge that the description of what happened on the set is made up; that your gut tells you that it didn’t happen; that she is either lying and her attorney knows it, or the attorney is incompetent or criminal charges would’ve been filed….” Etc. What covers you from a suit is the fact that folks involved in this case probably have bigger fish to fry and that you’re commenting on a public issue ….. the same thing that covers Bay, AHF and reporters covers you.

    Long story short, my friend, there are no lines to read between. Neither Cameron Bay nor her attorneys allege rape. If AHF comments publicly on the lawsuit and keeps its comments to the facts of the lawsuit, they can’t be sued for libel. Nor can reporters or commentators. That’s just the way the law works.

    It ain’t a rape case.

  55. BT

    I don’t think this will become part of this litigation if it goes to court, so bear with a little intellectual musing here. To me, the most dangerous allegation to the porn industry, and in particular to Kink given the content they produce, is allegation 33. on page 7 of the complaint. It reads (I’ve edited to shorten it):

    In the post-interview to the July 31, 2013 shoot ….. it is acknowledged that (Cameron Bay) went into “subspace” during the shoot …. Where the Sub lacks the mental capacity to make his or her own decisions. Given … (that) observation … (Cameron Bay) did not have the capacity to consent to the acts that were performed upon her.”

    So, why is that dangerous to Kink? Back during the argument over condoms, supporters of the industry made three arguments above and beyond the effectiveness of the current testing program. One is that performers are adults: They know what they’re getting into. Another is that what porn performers agree to do with their bodies is no different than professional athletes who put themselves at risk of serious injury for pay, like boxers and MMA fighters. Finally, using mainstream, they likened porn talent to Hollywood stunt people who do dangerous things for money.

    I think those arguments really don’t hold up to the light of day when applied to mainstream porn produced by Vivid, DP, Naughty America or Brazzers. I think they’re especially problematic when you think about what Kink does, or niche content like rosebud videos, where an actress is penetrated so violently that her anus prolaxes.

    Here’s why, just because someone is willing to consent to do something for money doesn’t mean it’s legal to do so. There are limits – you or I can’t consent to be shot or stabbed for money, for instance. If you doubt it, any number of performance artists have been prosecuted for pushing the limits of art, including a guy in NYC whose “performance” was to get shot with live ammunition by a revolver. That may not apply to mainstream porn, but if someone really wanted to take Kink or the rosebud producers to task, my guess is that being beaten, cattle-prodded and violated in public by strangers may push the limits of what’s defensible. You can argue the point – and it may be argued in this case.

    Second, the mainstream argument. As a former frequent poster on this site who was in the stunt industry often pointed out, the difference between mainstream and porn is that the sex and violence in porn is real – people really are being cattle prodded, penetrated and beaten so hard that they need corrective surgery after. Stunt people wear protective gear; the promise of porn is that there are no nets, not even condoms. Hey, it’s so real, we let HIV positive men perform without condoms and deposit viral loads into other HIV positive men. There are no trained medical professionals on set or ambulances waiting in the wings.

    That’s the same for professional sports. There’s no such thing as bare knuckle fighting – even MMA fighters wear some protective gear. There are referees to step in and stop the violence along with doctors on-hand to stop a fight if someone’s health is at stake. If one fighter is badly injured and bleeding profusely, his manager can’t confer with his opponents manager and make the decision to let the beating continue, the way that it is alleged that performers and the director conferred on the Kink set. That’s not just Cameron Bay’s allegation. Xander Corvus described this after the shoot and Peter Ackworth said publicly that things happened on that set that should not have happened.

    What’s different about this suit is that it goes right to the heart of consent, and argues that someone in that situation does not have the cognitive ability to give consent for the punishment to continue.

    If this case goes to trial, if paragraph 33 becomes an important part of what is litigated at trial, and if Bay prevails, porn is going to really have to think about the content that it films and what it can legally ask talent to consent to perform.

    Again, porn seems to exist in its own universe, where the laws of gravity do not apply, so who knows. To me, that seems like a far more dangerous paragraph to the industry than arguments over whether four fingers are fisting. That’s one individual on one set on one production; you can fix that by paying up and promising it’ll never happen again.

    The notion of consent for extreme content is a whole different animal.

  56. LurkingReader

    BT

    Reading through the case RandomGuy posted a link to there can be no mistake that Consent is at the heart of these cases. I sent Mike a PDF of doc 4-3 which is original complaint, if he hasn’t forwarded it yet send your e-mail to [email protected] and I’ll send you a copy & cc you with the rest of the case.

    Instead of a NO LIST that one references e-mail communications ‘condom required shoot’ a director forcing the head of a bound & blindfolded performer onto penises of public participants.

    Hopefully this analogy won’t open a can of worms but I’m seeing this NO LIST (consent issues) presented w respect to negligence much like a situation where a ER doctor didn’t look at a patient chart before or during the treatment process with an unfavorable outcome. Patient rights and the reasonable expectation that docs look at their chart is much more cut and dry than worker rights and reasonable expectations.

    “That’s one individual on one set on one production; you can fix that by paying up and promising it’ll never happen again.”
    The defenses I’ve seen so far indicate “promising not to do it again” is the issue because the only promises porn makes is that they will do it again since that’s what the customer wants.

  57. BT

    LurkingReader: I agree entirely that the No list is a form of consent and plays into negligence and fraud. You fraudulently induced me to perform in this shoot by telling me that I wouldn’t have to do anything I didn’t want to do; I could even create a no list of activities I don’t want to engage in and you ignored it. Kink was negligent by not making certain that its directors, set help, and performers understood the no’s before the shoot or for having consequences after (for instance, did any heads roll? Was anyone fined?).

    I think Paragraph 33 is different. It is saying that even if she did consent, her mental state was such at the time that she was not to consent to continue, regardless of what she said. While I know people will argue back and say I’m crazy – the same people who said I had my head up my ass when I explained exactly what would happen with the Vivid suit, and it did – but the analogy would be that this is why you have a referee and a ringside doc at a boxing match or a trainer and doc at a football game. It’s their job to tell the athlete that they may have all the heart in the world, but they are in no condition to continue because they are risking permanent and lasting injury.

    I think that paragraph 33 is laying the ground work for Bay’s attorneys to argue that even if she continued sucking Xander’s bloody penis, even after questioning whether that was the right thing to do, she was in no condition to make that decision. After all, she exposed herself to all sorts of bad things, even if he did not have HIV.

    Any manager at any business outside of porn who made a decision to allow an openly bleeding employee to continue on the job and bleed on other employees just to finish out the shift would be fired in a heart beat, even if no one became ill.

  58. LurkingReader

    Lol on Vivid suit, iirc I was saying FEC would be used to push 1A aspects and folks said I had my head in my ass too which reminds me to peek at gov response to 2257 en banc motion was due 8/5/15

    The boxing analogy is great and avoids these regs are medical can of worms. The ref, etc are all bound to the boxing commission to ensure performer safety and integrity of the match keeping spectators from crossing the rope lines or less visible line of boxer safety entering/exiting the ring. Ringside doc amounts to compliance with the OSHA first aid stuff listed in suit. FSC presents themselves as a self-regulatory body like the boxing commission but FSC teeth are dentures they remove at first scent of food.

    One of our favorite food service stories relates to a QSR franchisee that didn’t train or ensure competence of a contract worker who’s finger tip landed on someone’s plate. That was quickly resolved with two quiet settlements and a promise not to do it again. Along the lines of only in porn is only in food service, the contract worker claimed …healed digit sans tip would cause other employers to question his qualifications 🙂

  59. MikeSouth

    Well said BT simetimes I feel I should have you on payroll, you are after all a professional writer…Thank you so much for your contributions.

    I am not surprised how many Americans dont really understand the workings of the law, it isnt like they even teach the basics until you go beyond high school (at least they didn’t when I went to high school) and the differences between a criminal and a civil action are monumental. not just in burden of proof but in every aspect a civil action doesnt have to involve a crime though it can. I dont see rape in this case at all because as a criminal act that would be exceedingly difficult to prove, believe me, many girls consulted lawyers about accusing Max Hardcore of rape, and it never happened. And even if Cameron did bring up rape as an allegation that would result in a criminal proceeding and even if someone went to jail for it it doesnt give Cameron any compensation other than maybe the knowledge that someone went to jail for it…This isnt about jail its about money, jail wont pay her medical bills, and I think that is going to be a big part of this case as well.

    remember too that many of the complaints are NEGLIGENCE think about it if you are Cameron bay and you are looking to recover money you spent on medical bills, lost wages whatever, why allege rape against some random guy at the shoot that might even be essentially homeless when you can allege that a very wealthy company was aware that what they were doing could result in serious harm to you and that negligence is why you were injured….first rule of civil litigation NEVER EVER sue poor people.

    This case is far bigger than the industry A: wants to admit, or B:realizes if Cameron Bay wins, this industry will be changed forever I think.

  60. BT

    Happy to send you my bank routing number.

    Truth is, this stuff fascinates me. These days, it fascinates me more than porn scenes titillate me. Maybe I’m getting old. Maybe I’ve seen too many cookie cutter porn scenes that just don’t turn me on.

    On the legal stuff, for better or for worse, I had the advantage of covering cops and criminal hanky panky when I was a cub reporter on a small town newspaper, and the opportunity to cover several really big, high profile and lengthy civil trials for magazines where I got to dig deep into the machinations of the legal system.

    I was also sued five or six times as a co-defendant with big media companies, including one case that actually went to a six week jury trial in federal court. You get an education that isn’t available to the average person watching Law & Order.

    None of my responses to MHarris are meant to be personal attacks. Heck, my guess is that there are a fair number of readers who see those posts and think: Hell, yeah! But the posts aren’t the way the rules work, and the legal system plays by a set of rules. I hope MHarris understands I mean no disrespect.

    PS – I feel as lucky to have your site to read and respond. It’s been a wonderful resource for a long time. You do good work, my friend.

  61. BT

    MHarris: I have never posted a comment arguing whether what happened was or was not rape. My point – and the point that Mike, LurkingReader and others have made – is that its beside the point.

    This is not a criminal matter and there are no allegations of rape in the lawsuit. It’s about negligence and fraud. People can argue all day long about whether it was or wasn’t rape, whether it’s a false accusation of rape, whether someone should or should not be prosecuted. Great fodder for discussion.

    But it’s a discussion that has nothing to do with this lawsuit because the word rape does not appear in the complaint. That’s all any of us are trying to say.

  62. LurkingReader

    YQW.

    Took a peek around and saw the usual FSC barkers have been busy spinning this since it was filed. The one thing that stood out for me was a paragraph in this article http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/05/07/porn-actor-with-hiv-pins-blame-on-kink-com.htm

    “Identifying himself only as John Doe, the plaintiff says he notified Kink.com immediately when he tested HIV-positive in May 2013, but that studio bosses kept his status quiet until shooting wrapped, leaving regulators in the dark and causing a delay that likely resulted in HIV exposures for two performers.”

    The reporter quotes Karen Tynan extensively and this paragraph sums up the light the industry wants to cast this lawsuit in. On the flip side the lawsuit claims Kink keeping mum preventing tracking the source of Doe’s infection. I think the wording of the paragraph will gets lots of attention as this plays out.

    The courthouse news article attributes but does not directly quote Tynan as a source stating this is frivolous suit that was thrown out the workmans comp arena. Other sites claim the San Francisco health dept. did partner tracing and ruled out all of Doe’s on-set partners as the source.

    Neither point out that had Kink followed current policies there is no reasonable expectation that Doe would know the ‘source’ of his infection. This remains true if 5193.1 is adopted and relates to why in Feb. 2011 Jeffrey Douglas was emphatic in educating performers of their right to refuse giving blood samples to the LA county health dept.

    When the health dept does partner notifications they are also trying to source the infection to ensure any ongoing risk has been mitigated, if not the health dept goal is to mitigate the risk with testing, diagnosis and treatment referrals. They can not and do not inform patients in Doe’s position of who the culprit was. First it violates patient confidentiality, second patients have the right to refuse which means absent genetic sequencing the health dept doesn’t know the source and if they do we’re back to square one in civil matters.

    If you read OSHA policies you’ll notice that if this were reported to them OSHA has a duty to contact all known or available workplace sources; there is no duty on the part of those contacted to provide blood samples.
    Those contacted do NOT have a duty to provide blood samples and any of those untested participants could say ‘TY for letting me know there was a HIV incident reported no need to test me I’ve known my status for x years’ as a reason NOT to be tested.

    So I expect there will be lots of legal lingo flying back and forth with Kink trying to get the ‘Kink kept mum’ paragraph tossed and Doe trying to keep it in. Will print the other docs to PDF and look forward to BT and others take on the twists & turns on the docket so far.

Leave a Reply