Alan Gelbard Threatens L A Direct

TEL: (818)386-9200 – FAX: (818)386-9289 – E-MAIL: [email protected]
June 20, 2013
Via: Certified Mail/RR
CC E-Mail: [email protected]
Derek Hey
Direct Models, Inc.
3599 Cahuenga Blvd. West, Suite 4D
Los Angeles, CA 90068
Re: Katarzyna and Magdalena Tyszka v. Direct Models, Inc. and Derek Hey.
Dear Mr. Hay:
This office represents Katarzyna Tyszka and Magdalena Tyszka who perform under their stage names
Natalia and Natasha Starr and, collectively, as the Starr sisters. Please send all further communications
pertaining to this matter directly to my attention.
You are hereby informed that my clients are no longer to be represented by Direct Models, Inc. (“DMI”).
My clients hereby terminate their respective written agreements with DMI dated 8/17/12 (the Agreement(s)) due
to DMI’s illegal, unethical and tortuous activities. Demand is hereby made that you immediately discontinue
any and all such representation and remove my client’s from your website(s).
Upon review of the file, it appears that my clients have, among others, the following obvious claims:
A) The Agreements state that Direct Models, Inc. is entitled to fifteen percent (15%) of earnings
generated by my client on agency bookings, yet you have charged production companies an additional fee –
which we believe to be, on average, one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per booking – that was neither disclosed
in the original Agreement, nor credited to my client’s earnings. My client is entitled to 85% of these improperly
collected funds. This constitutes a material breach of the agreement as well as a conflict of interest in violation
of Ca Labor Code §1700.40 and would appear to constitute an unfair business practice pursuant to Ca Civ Code
§17200, et seq.
B) Direct Models, Inc. sent my clients, without their prior knowledge, permission or consent, to
engage in “privates” and threatened them when they arrived and were confronted by “Johns” rather than
legitimate producers. Your actions are clearly not related to the legitimate production of adult entertainment
products and are, therefore, not protected under People v. Freeman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 419. Rather, your conduct
violates California Penal Code §§ 266i(a)(1, 2). Further, you have sent my clients across state lines to do so in
violation of the Mann Act (see 18 U.S.C. § 2421, et seq). This also constitutes a violation of Ca Labor Code
§1700.33 and an illegal business practice pursuant to Ca Civ Code 17200, et seq.
C) The Agreements provided to my clients, as a single integrated agreement (see Ca Civ Code §
1642), were not, in their entirety, provided to and/or approved by the Labor Commissioner which constitutes a
violation of Ca Labor Code §1700.23 and constitutes grounds to void the entire agreement.
We have also ascertained that, having been advised that my clients intended to terminate your agency
relationship, you – personally – have undertaken a campaign to defame my clients and to intentionally interfere
in their ongoing business ventures. We have been advised that you – personally – have contacted the promoters
of the EXXXotica convention and threatened to damage the event and/or any participant therein that employ
either or both of my clients. Such actions constitutes extortion, a clear breach on your fiduciary duties to my
clients, and tortuous interference with their prospective businesses. Demand is hereby made that you
discontinue such actions and that you immediately contact any and all parties to whom you have made these
threats and withdraw same without qualification. Be advised that my clients will proceed against DMI and you
for any and all lost income that results from your unlawful actions.
My clients hereby demand that they both be immediately released – in writing – from their Agreements
and that they be removed from your website(s). You are not to hold yourself out as their agent, and are not to
take any actions whatsoever to interfere with their ongoing careers. If you fail to promptly comply with my
clients’ demands, please be advised that we intend to pursue all available remedies pursuant to Ca Labor Code §
1700.44, Ca B&P Code § 17200 et seq, and will seek reimbursement for their attorney’s fees and costs pursuant
to Ca Civ Code § 1717. As it appears your unlawful activities may impact all your clients, we reserve the right
to bring any such proceeding as the representative of a class of equally situated individuals.
You are hereby placed on notice that a dispute exists as to your right to any and/or all fees you have
obtained as related to my clients. Demand is hereby made that you preserve all evidence in your possession
and/or under your control related thereto including but not limited to client booking records, revenue reports,
billing information, banking information, copies of your website, e-mails, and any and all third party agreements
and/or communications pertaining to my clients, whether in hard copy or electronic form.
Please respond to this letter – in writing – no later than 5:00 pm on June 21, 2013. If you are represented
by counsel in this matter, your attorney should contact me directly.
Nothing in this letter is intended as, nor shall be construed as, an admission against the interests of my
client, nor a waiver of her claims, rights, remedies or defenses, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Allan B. Gelbard
Attorney at Law

LA Direct Response

License No: TA ? 3872
Re: Actors:
Magdalena Tyszka p/k/a Natasha Starr
Katarzyna Tyszka p/k/a Natalia Starr
06 / 27 / 2013
Via: Certified Mail/ RR
CC E?mail: [email protected]
Alan B Gelbard,
15760 Ventura Blvd, Suite 801,
Encino, CA 91436
Dear Mr Gelbard,
This communication is for settlement purposes only and all information conveyed is subject
to the confidentiality provisions of California Evidence Code § 1152 and Federal Rule of Evidence 408
and may not be used for any other purpose or proceeding.”
1. Please be advised in the first instance, that the Artist / Agency Agreement between Ms
Kataryzyna Tyszka p/k/a Natalia Starr and this Agency remains in full force and effect
and is not terminated. Neither shall it be terminated unless and until one of the
following actions occur,
(a) Decision at conclusion of administrative process to determine same at Dept of Labor
Standards of Enforcement.
(b) Superior court judge decision following legal proceeding to litigate same.
(c) Expiration date of Agreement.
2. The Artist / Agency Agreement between Magdalena Tyszka p/k/a Natasha Starr was
terminated on June 12th 2013 by mutual agreement. Ms Magdalena Tyszka has since
been sent both E?mail and registered mail, written communications confirming same.
Ms Tyszka visited the Agency office on 06 / 21 / 2013, met with Agency head accountant
and closed out her financial affairs.
3. Your allegations A is incorrect, disputed, lacks merit and substance and is in fact common
‘ custom and practice’ in all elements of talent Agency representation of actors both
within the ‘adult industry ‘ and in the ‘mainstream industry’ of television, feature film
and theatrical stage. Such matter has been widely litigated previously and decision found
in favor of the Agencies on same by DLSE administrative process. For the record the
standardized fee provided to Agency for the casting of its Talent, in no way has any
relevance to or bearing on, the fee negotiated by Agency on behalf its Actor client.
4. Your allegation B – is wholly without truth nor merit since Direct Models does not book
‘privates’ and without question you have no evidence to support such a claim. Direct
Models only accepts and negotiates employment for its Artists from legitimate studios,
directors and producers and at all times conducts itself in a manner befitting and
according to that to be expected and lawfully required, of a professional and licensed
Talent Agency.
Further, allegation of violation of the Mann Act, a federal criminal statute, and California
Penal Code §§ 266i(a) (1,2) – State felony pandering, is a violation of the ABA Canons of
Professional Responsibility on your part. “A lawyer shall not present, participate in
presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a
civil matter.” Knowing that such claim entirely lack supporting evidence, it could also be
the case that you are “knowingly making a false statement or fact”, equally a violation of
the same Canons.
It is widely known that Sydney Coca made such allegation to you and others, for he
makes public comment on same at social gatherings.
Given that ‘ Sydney Coca aka Raul’ husband of Magdalena Tyszka has previously and
continues now, to arrange for the booking of both sisters for ‘privates’ a pseudonym for
acts of prostitution, and continues to do so even as these communications go back and
forth, one wonders as to the credibility that will be afforded testimony from him that
licensed Agency acted in the manner alleged. Lest there be any misunderstanding there
are numerous person that will attest to his aforementioned activity and only this past
week he has arranged for and administrated the enlistment of the sisters with the escort
agency aka ‘front for prostitution’ known as ‘Pam Peaks’ with website at Mr Coca’s efforts in this regard are not either limited to his own
booking of the sisters or to their placement with an escort service for booking for
‘privates’ , for Mr Coca also drives the sisters to and from such bookings and charges
each a commission from their earnings.
Be advised that it is Direct Models intent to publicize your threat of the ‘Mann Act” and
California Penal Code to the adult entertainment industry.
6. Your allegation C – is disputed. Documents pertinent to the Talent Agencies Act and the
Agreement created between Artist and Agency are approved by Labor Commissioner
and nothing in any other document is detrimental to the interest of the Artist. In fact,
suggested codes of behavior and reasonable standards of practice to be observed, only
benefit Artist and the Agencies ability to best represent Artist ? to the benefit of Artist.
Such suggestion is neither a violation of the Talent Agencies Act.
7. Kataryzyna Tyszka p/k/a Natalia Starr is an “Artist”, within the meaning of Labor Code
§1700.4(b) and Direct Models Inc is a licensed talent agency. California Labor Code
§1700.44(a) provides in relevant part. “ In cases of controversy arising under this chapter
the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner”..You
are well aware of the administrative process for determining controversy that exist
regarding Talent Agencies and that all administrative remedies must be exhausted
before other proceeding. I suggest that remedy be sought as statutorily prescribed, and
more appropriately be dropped. Be apprised that attorney fees recovery in California is
mutual and goes to the prevailing party.
8. You are informed that your clients have allowed it to become widely known the amount
of your fee, which be so small as to clearly not be commensurate on a professional basis
with the work involved and therefore gives rise to opine if the ligation threatened be not
so much in the interest of your client but your own. Direct Models has good reason to
believe that such practice and circumstance extend beyond the clients named here but
also with regard to others in similar actions against other talent agencies for which your
law practice is equally becoming widely known. One wonders therefore if you yourself
have in fact become the protagonist and merely use the client as a pawn with which to
maneuver. Once again this is a breach of ABA Canons of Professional Responsibility that
prescribe “a lawyer should always act in a manner consistent with the best interest of his
client” and additionally that “ attorney may not acquire a proprietary interest in the
litigation”. If the motivation for the action be to seek termination of the Artist / Agency
Agreement – other attorneys have achieved same with mutual agreement in short order,
utilizing good faith negotiation, where your method has not.
9. As the Premier Talent Agency in the adult entertainment industry ? Direct Models is
proud to hold several exclusive contractual relationships with producers of conventions
one of which is indeed Exxxotica show. None of our Artists are ‘employed’ at these shows
and the show at no time has ‘paid nor employed ‘ any Artist through Direct Models for
appearance at such a show. It has already been clearly stated in this letter as to the
mutual termination of Agency Agreement with ‘Magdalena Tyszka p/k/a Natasha Starr,
who is free to book herself however and with whomever, she or her husband choose to
do so.
Kataryzyna Tyszka p/k/a Natalia Starr is not included in those Artists scheduled to appear
via Direct Models at next Exxxotica show, though has been in the past and will be again in
the future. The show reasonably requires that Direct Models provide variation to its
Artist schedule from show to show.
Noted is your demand to respond within 24 hrs because of your impending vacation.
Response is made in a timely manner and within a time frame that would ordinarily be
considered reasonable. Direct Models does not feel compelled to hurry such a response
by falsely created time frame nor impending vacation.
Nothing in this letter is intended as, nor shall be construed as, an admission against the
interest of Direct Models, nor a waiver of any claims, rights, remedies or defenses, all of
which are hereby expressly reserved.
Derek Hay on behalf of Direct Models Inc.

What I found interesting here are two things in particular…one is that Gelbard would threaten criminal action under “The Mann Act”  for starters if Gelbard did dime out people on The Mann Act it wouldnt be LA Direct that would be charged, but the producers who paid for the transportation, secondly it is really a no no for a lawyer to threaten criminal prosecution in a civil matter, which this is.

It also seems really poor form to me for Gelbard take it to this extreme when it appears theres only a couple months left on the contract anyway but I may be reading that wrong.

I guess Gelbard isn’t making any money any other way….

77520cookie-checkAlan Gelbard Threatens L A Direct

Alan Gelbard Threatens L A Direct

Share This

16 Responses

  1. The spelling errors and the odd constructions and unnecessary adjectives (unbecoming of a legal letter, even a threatening one) in this letter from Gelbard made me smile. Is he even a real attorney?

  2. This represents the tip of the iceberg.

    Just imagine a naive 20 year old ‘porn performer’ who gets caught in a sting prostitution bust, lets say for The Luxury Companion. They threaten her with jail time if she doesnt cooperate, so she decides to flip. She hands over her cell phone, and while the feds have her phone she gets a call from her ‘legal california agent’ and that agent is stupid enough to leave a message.

  3. Who is the producer who paid for
    The transportation?
    Nobody has ever done anything like this toward bloody bloke Derek Gay.

  4. is the bomb!
    You, Mike always get the good stories out. Hell of lot better that that idiot site with a bunch of moron former performers with ED and theories
    and conspiracies.

  5. Thanks Ricco, seriously. I’m trying to be straight up with everyone in and out of the biz. I believe that light is the best cure for what is ailing porn…Get it all out in the open and address it honestly and sanely

  6. Hey! This so called attorney is a
    Evil Angel attorney? This is getting be too much!

  7. Word of advice. NEVER retain a lawyer who doesn’t know how to spell “tortious.”

    If Derek even bothered to show the letter to his lawyer, I’m sure they had a good laugh about it.

  8. Here’s the good news. This isn’t an election year. Why is that important? Because, if nothing else, this little throw down provides a road map for some ambitious prosecutor to make a name for himself …. in an election year. I grew up in a midwestern city made famous for its very close relationship with the mob. Reader’s Digest once called us “Mob Town, USA” and the FBI named a car bombing technique after the city. Paulie gets arrested there in an episode in the Sopranos.

    Anyway, all the bars near the factories in the industrial part of town had video poker machines in the back and private rooms on the second floor. During hotly contested mayoral races, the incumbent who wanted to look tough on crime would stage raids on the bars. The raids were covered by the local television stations. Except the TV stations got smart. They’d post a camera at the front of the bar with the cops and another at the back of the bar.

    They’d follow the cops through the front door of the bar, where they’d find 3 grandmas drinking ginger ale at the bar. They’d also film the goons bringing the poker machines out the back door. Then, they’d film the cops coming out the front door. While the mayoral candidate would claim this showed his tough on crime campaign was working, the goons took the machines back into the bar through the back door.

    And all was right with the world.

    Some tough on crime prosecutor with ambition could start paying attention to things like this suit and Rob Black and start making busts …. if this was an election year.

    It could be fun to watch.

  9. That sucks!! Get booked for a shoot in Florida and show up
    And its a private. Only @ LA direct.
    Sounds like Derek is having bad

  10. The ‘contracts’ between performers and agents are simple to get out of. Just call the DIR, tell them that your agent booked you for a scenes that were non-condom, (aviolation of OSHA 5193) or they booked you to work for a company that does not carry workers comp insurance for their employees. That company might say they consider you an independent contractor, but that simply will not fly in a courtroom.

    It is the legal duty of an agent to make sure that any company they send a talent to work for has workers comp insurance. You dont even need a lawyer to do this, but it doesnt hurt.

Leave a Reply