@mharris

different field names but lots of regulatory red tape from both…S&L had to ditch club plans for a/m of newer s&l that didn’t have them but fought & won on sharecard variance. Shawmut when they finally got a/m with Fleet CC straightened out was a nightmare..retail branch managers had to manually recode every asset then do it again when FDIC changed mind. when FDIC showed up at Shawmut Norfolk – banking was still prohibited from inter-county banking – President of Shawmut Cambridge sent me a magnet with bank logo ‘what are the odds?’ as a joke because he hired me for experience with FDIC audit at S&L & branch level at BayBank. Trudged home many a day wondering what new way FDIC planned to wreck our week. 😉

Yes, I do, Jamie. Some of my methods aren’t appropriate for this venue, however.

Lurking, the NCUA is a different animal than the FDIC in several ways as they have more control over a credit union’s destiny and management than the FDIC does over banks and S&Ls — right down to the NCUA having the say-so to stop an expansion of services and a merger of two credit unions in its tracks no matter what the membership wants or what is best for said members. I was involved in one merger, the only way it could legally be done was very convoluted involving a change of field of membership from a community CU where we served a geographical area to a multiple common bond policy where we were only authorized to take new members from a couple of employers (in our case a factory and a community college). Luckily we were only under that field of membership for one week from the change in field of membership until the merger actually took place (the surviving CU was a multiple common bond where the “common bond” was paying $1 to join a co-operative, if it had been a community charter CU we would not have had any issues regarding the NCUA with the merger).

@mharris & BT

A wise man said the following to my husband in front of me…at the time I was mortified and offended as only a 21yo bride of six weeks can be.

“She’s a talker, if ever a day comes and she isn’t talking you know it’s time to ditch Dodge toot suite”

Life’s path has proven how true and wise those words are. It takes much more than differences in opinion or preference for me to have a problem with someone vs the usual exasperation or annoyance that keeps life interesting. When I have a real problem with someone my silence speaks louder than anything my verbose loquacious natural gift for gab could ever say. 😉

Because there has been at times a hostile tone to the back & forth I’d call it bickering vs bantering where more agreement is apparent in the back & forth.

Never worked NCUA as S&L and Commercial Banks are backed via FDIC. With Interest rates at 14% and A-loans at 17-19% it was very interesting to see the creative arguments tossed around the S&L board table to get an approval for sketchy loans. All employees were required & paid to attend…per their board policy as a form of training and policy compliance which paid off big time when we got picked for a random FDIC full audit right down to share cards & club accounts.

Was curious and wondered if my idea of fuck puppet being similar to sock puppet was near the mark. Was a bit surprised at how closely they aligned. Lol first time I heard sock puppet was a new upstart hurling it at me across a board table…was so astonished it didn’t register I was sitting there with mouth hanging wide open till someone stood up and countered on my behalf…told the guy he was nuts cuz I’m an equal opportunity annoyance and he was in for a rude awakening if he ever tried to pin me down to any company line. 😉

Shalom!

Agreed. This thing will have nothing to do with defamation, libel or anything like that. It’ll be misappropriation of her likeness because there’s no signed release or there’s some other business arrangement that we’re not aware of based on the reporting. At the end, it’s about money.

I don’t expect to be deposed or testify as an expert about anything sexual (including BDSM). Now if it involves a company’s accounting practices or how a credit union’s management mismanaged a credit union causing it to go broke and the need for the NCUA to pay off depositors I might.

Also, thanks for clarifying the term “fuck puppet” with information from the Urban Dictionary. It is a term that I actually don’t like but since it was used here I needed to explain it. In porn the term (from what I can gather) is used more loosely as a chickie that gets fucked roughly on screen for money.

I don’t have a problem with you, Lurking. You aren’t posting just to piss me off, you actually have a valid point even if I disagree with some of them. It is people like Hop Sing (whom I suspect is actually a certain guy currently working daily on Lankershim Blvd. in Hollywood that thinks his video podcast featuring him and his girlfriend will eventually make it big) that just want to piss me off and make me look like an idiot (unsuccessfully IMO) that piss me off. I thought that was clear with the different tone of my posts responding to you versus the ones responding to Hop but maybe it is good to make that crystal clear.

@BT

Using her performances as you did points out the public persona and describing them in context of how the term ‘fuck puppet’ is used absolutely made sense. It also tied in questions people had as to why urination and his prior conviction would be relevant.

Expect that his suit and any responses he makes will spell out in detail every production she played a submissive and that those briefs will argue prior consent and pre arranged consent and safe words as a defense to her claims.

The mystery around the model release and references to an unsigned post performance agreement is also where I see the basis for the suit. If there wasn’t a Model Release spelling out prior consent it may not matter if she cashed a check after the fact or how many other similar scenes she performed in. If there isn’t a model release I expect her attorney would use the model release for every similar scene submitted to prevent it being used as evidence or use them to make a case about her performance limitations and how the content at issue breaks that pattern.

Personally filed a civil suit in Florida Middle with demand for ‘unspecified damages’ that required inclusion of facts to ensure defendant couldn’t remove it to State Court. Also wrote NPO checks for over 100k to cover travel and local counsel costs to successfully defend a suit. That experience prompted written policy inclusion of locale for five national/international NPO where counsel advised that we could specify locale but couldn’t specify venue.

Also expect that Max’s comments re both being California residents would relate to the following from an order granting removal to Federal for a civil suit filed in Indiana State court against a Florida NPO.

“This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28USC 1332, which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to the provisions of 28USC 1441(b), because it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”

This still doesn’t explain why he didn’t file within 30 days to have case removed to California. Until I saw there were three claims for 50k assumed it didn’t meet threshold for removal. There are lots of ways to justify venue shopping but lawyer location isn’t one of them.

My guess as to why Max didn’t file for removal to Federal in California … There wasn’t a signed contract spelling out prior consent and the post performance agreement remained unsigned. Freeman is a California Court decision that distinguishes filmed sexual for payment from pandering from payment for sex equating to pandering/prostitution. Iirc Freeman doesn’t specify requirements for a signed model release.

Someone commented re prostitution angle and others pointed out cashing the check as confirmation of a handshake agreement. Don’t know but…seems plausible that using his tweets is a way around both in the absence of a signed model agreement. She could be using the tweets to back up claim that he filmed a personal sexual encounter for personal purposes and never intended it for public consumption and any cashed check is for unrelated agreements.

Lastly…bickering with erik2690 or mharris among others doesn’t mean every opinion I offer is intended to be argumentative. Standing behind my viewpoint or opinions doesn’t mean I’m trying to argue against or defeat yours or anyone else’s. I’m comfortable with and invite detail debates to help evolve a fuller picture than I’m capable of seeing. Though the process is sometimes intimidating and humbling I’m not threatened by evolving pictures or expect the process to lead to consensus.

LurkingReader – the relevance to the fact that she performed for Kink is this. According to the reporting – and that’s all we have to go by – she says that her career is hurt by being associated with Max Hardcore. In part, that is because his scenes sometimes involve urination, degradation and humiliation.

I first brought up squirting and Kink – not MHarris. My point was this. She is the new Squirt woman. If you watch her scenes, she is not squirting (whatever that really is). She’s peeing. And, when she works with someone like Veronica Avluv, another voluminous squirter, they are squirting – peeing – into each other’s mouths. If you’re reputation is in part built on your willingness to both pee on someone and be peed on by them, its pretty hard to argue that your reputation is ruined and your career harmed by being associated with a director who includes peeing in his scenes. Heck, if she’s ever shot a scene with James Deen, he’s associated with peeing scenes. He loves filming them.

Second, she has shot for Kink.com. That company’s stock-in-trade is humiliation and degradation. They have whole niches devoted to it. So, you can’t argue legally that your brand is tarnished by being associated with one producer who humiliates talent when you willingly shoot for another that is possibly the most violent and brutal shop among the name-brand porn shops.

If being associated with felons is a problem with her, heck she shouldn’t be in porn. I realize the owner of Kink may not have been convicted of a crime – I am not calling him a felon – but Kink has been busted for having cocaine and shooting off firearms. That doesn’t appear to bother her.

Last, if this really went to trial, she has to prove real economic damages. You can’t just say being associated with Max Hardcore is causing me to lose money. She has to prove it. She has to show that she was making $X before Max began promoting the scene and she is making less than $X now as a direct result of that scene. She has to bring in a producer who says: I would love to shoot Bonnie Rotten, but I won’t because she shot a scene with Max Hardcore and I can’t imagine anyone else ever hiring her again because of that.

I’m not going to get into the “what constitutes a fuck puppet” argument.

This is going to come down to whether she was paid for the scene and signed a model release, any subsequent agreements they may or may not have had, and whether they were legally binding. I’m still confused as to why this was filed in a circuit court in Chicago. Could be she knows a lawyer in Chicago who was willing to file this for her. But it really makes no sense.

@msharris

Ps…did ya notice the “kinky” I slipped in for you?