This one I suspect has merit and lots of it. Best wishes to Scottine aka Brett Rossi who has written for mikesouth.com in the past.
From Reuters
A former girlfriend of Charlie Sheen on Thursday sued the actor for assault, negligence and emotional distress, saying they had sex at least five times before he revealed he was HIV-positive.
Scottine Ross, 26, who said she met Sheen while she was working as a porn actress and later became engaged to him, also claimed the actor forced her to have an abortion after she became pregnant in 2014, and had kicked and choked her on numerous occasions during their one-year relationship.
The lawsuit, filed in California Superior Court, is the first known legal action against Sheen since he revealed in a TV interview in November that he had been diagnosed HIV-positive four years ago.
The former star of TV comedy “Two and a Half Men,” 50, said at the time he had decided to speak out because he had paid some $10 million to people for their silence.
Sheen, who is three times divorced and has dated many porn stars, also said it was “impossible” that he had transmitted the virus to anyone else. He said he “always led with condoms and honesty when it came to my condition.”
His attorney, Martin Singer, said on Thursday that Sheen plans to “vigorously defend the lawsuit filed by Scottine Ross. We are confident that Mr. Sheen will prevail in this action.”
Ross’ lawsuit said she first met Sheen in November 2013, when he paid $10,000 to have sex with her. The couple had sex at least five times before Ross discovered his medications for the treatment of HIV, she said. The couple later fell in love and had unprotected sex “like a normal couple.”
Ross alleged several violent outbursts during their relationship, including being kicked, punched, put in a chokehold and having an unloaded gun pointed at her.
She is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.
Sheen said in November that he had been blackmailed for years by people threatening to disclose his HIV status. He also appeared resigned to a stream of new lawsuits.
Under California’s criminal statute, a person who knowingly exposes another to HIV through unprotected sex must be proved to have had a deliberate intent to infect them.
The law means that criminal prosecutions are rare but civil cases can be brought on a range of grounds, including alleged negligence, emotional distress or sexual battery.
44 Responses
Brett Rossi Files Suit Against Charlie Sheen https://t.co/rG0t0lv74j
@TempusSpiritus @Robknowsxxx @wildb_porn_fan @TheKorgman
Brett Rossi Files Suit Against Charlie Sheen https://t.co/EhO6bF1PER
I guess she needs the money, her porn and escorting careers are probably over.
That is a cynical viewpoint and a common one as she is a sex worker and won’t get a lot of respect from most people. You don’t think she has a beef to sue someone who didn’t tell her he had HIV? That is a crime in a lot of places, so in that alone, she should be in full right to sue. Let a judge decide if she should get compensation or not. This is not just a “money grab” on it’s own without any merit.
Although the clowns will come out and start attacking her wondering why she didn’t report these alleged physical assaults and beatings she is claiming in the suit. The same old “why didn’t you report it at the time” that rape and abuse apologists like to trot out every time.
She certainly can destroy his claims of using condoms and informing his partners pretty easily so he won’t have much of a leg to stand on with that part of the suit. The physical abuse will be tough unless she has hospital reports or filed police reports that never resulted in charges.
I wish her well and hope she gets a fair result.
Hey Mike, I tell ya what if you stand with this woman, I do too. We all know the bad acts Charlie did in the past, and hopefully this will give Brett Rossi some closure, and whatever the courts may find.
Sheen’s attorney, Martin Singer, was the lawyer for Bill Cosby. Singer attacked the credibility of the women accusing Cosby.
By Charlie’s account someone (or more then one) blackmailed him for $10,000,000. I’m not saying she should not sue Charlie, just saying its her best option at this point. I notice Charlie is keeping quiet on who he paid the money to, its probably gonna come out in court.
Ivy I have to disclose that Brett and I are very close personal friends so even when trying to be objective I would tend to lean towards supporting her. On this one though I support her because of things I know from being friends with her, there is so much that hasn’t come out. But it will. Brett is a good person I believe that with all my heart and I know that she was treated very badly. Of all the girls that have been attention whoring over this she never did and she was the one who was most abused.
oh theres no doubt it will get dirty, look at it this way…its all out in the open now Charlie has little to lose from a publicity standpoint so itll be gloves off against Brett I expect but she is a strong and a good person, she will be fine
@mike Well you know that your opinion matters, even some random internet person like me can see that. Good luck to Brett.
Wow! I thought i’d never going to say this, but i have to start agreeing with all those men who say that we girls are retarded. I mean, etymologically, as in being late, we seem to be unbeatable lately.
I don’t know why Brett’s story would be hard to believe, the only people I can imagine not believing it would be someone that don’t personally know a narcissistic Meth addict.
That baby was her meal ticket. I don’t see why she would get an abortion, and how he could make her.
Mike correct me if I’m wrong but if Charlie Sheen didn’t call it off with Brett Rossi she would of never filed a law suit. She did say they had sex like a normal couple knowing he was HIV positive. So how can she file a lawsuit now. Also from all the pictures that were posted on the things they done as a couple, she didn’t look unhappy to me, so how can that stand up in court. Unless of course he passed the HIV onto her, if not she should be thankful he didn’t and just leave it at that. I guess Karmafan is right she must need the money since her porn and escorting career is over, and a normal job doesn’t pay enough.
Mike correct me if I’m wrong but if Charlie Sheen didn’t call it off with Brett Rossi she would of never filed a law suit. She did say they had sex like a normal couple knowing he was HIV positive. So how can she file a lawsuit now. Also from all the pictures that were posted on the things they done as a couple, she didn’t look unhappy to me, so how can that stand up in court. Unless of course he passed the HIV onto her, if not she should be thankful he didn’t and just leave it at that. I guess Karmafan is right she must need the money since her porn and escorting career is over, and a normal job doesn’t pay enough.
She’s in the right seat if or when this roller coaster hits vomit inducing twisting turns and has friends to hold her hair up and make her laugh cuz she isn’t wearing someone else’s lunch.
@mikesouth This is the part of the story I do not understand. So Brett is having a relationship with Charlie Sheen. After over four sexual encounters, she finds the Truvada pills and right then and there, why didn’t she go to the polcie? Right then and there why didn’t she go to the media? Go to somebody and say this M’Fer was HIV+ and had sex with me without telling me?
She did none of those things. She continued the relationship, knowing he was HIV+, then proceeded to get pregnant with a child while KNOWING he was HIV+. Do you know how terrible of a person that makes Brett Rossi or Scottine? It doesn’t make her as low as Sheen, but it makes her look like someone that will do anything for a buck.
Brett Rossi is a beautiful girl. Seems to have a fun personality. But she will win nothing in this case. Unless she can show old pictures with proof of abuse, its going to be he-said versus she said and guess what? Charlie’s lawyer is about as good a lawyer you can possibly get.
Brett Rossi when she found those Truvada pills could have put an end to Charlie Sheen’s HIV+ sexual scandals. She chose not too, not only continuing to endanger her own life, but also endanger the lives of others who could have known about Sheen’s HIV+ status sooner.
I remember she did all lesbian flicks and 1 B/G scene with Erik Everhard for Dp who uses condoms. Thank God because I am willing to bet she has some sort of the HIV virus in her if she had unprotected sex with Sheen for over a year!!!
That’s a really good point, Jamie.
High five 🙂
Just a thought, Ms. Rossi now comes forward with a law suit after Charlie comes clean about his HIV. Could she be the one who has been blackmailing him. If it is her, she could be in a whole lot of trouble. I don’t think the law takes kindly to extortion. But that’s just my thought.
I cant say what she would have done had they not broken up, obviously but I do know that the article didn’t mention the fact that Brett was on the PreP treatments. Im not an attornet but you should read James Feltons post on this very topic from last week.
http://www.mikesouth.com/legal/charlie-sheen-does-paying-for-sex-provide-him-any-cover-12883/
It answers your questions to some degree
I can say for sure she was not the one blackmailing him that was Taylor Tilden…thats well known.
well, mike, Brett is going to need people like you to talk to because she is going to get hammered over this. I believe she has the right to file this suit and a judge can decide if it has merit or not; not the public nor me or anyone else. It will get ugly and there will be days she will want to withdraw and give up.
And people still trot out “why didn’t she come forward sooner”. If it is not apparent as to why victims stay silent, this is yet another piece on the Mt Everest of evidence to tell us why.
Oh Brett has been hammered over this for a long time…they have been split up for over a year. however this plays out it will get closure for her, which is what she needs I think.
This most recent news from AP:
An ex-fiancee of Charlie Sheen has sued the actor claiming he didn’t disclose he was HIV positive until after they had sex several times and was physically and emotionally abusive during their relationship.
Scottine Ross, a porn star who performed under the name Brett Rossi, sued the actor on Thursday for assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Her lawsuit states she and Sheen had sex five times before the actor told her he was HIV positive.
“As a result of this exposure, (Ross) has suffered serious emotional distress from a reasonable fear that she will contract HIV,” the suit states.
The “Two and a Half Men” star publicly disclosed he was HIV positive on the “Today” show last month but said he disclosed his status to all his sexual partners. He also vowed during the appearance that he would not to pay to settle any claims from sexual partners claiming he exposed them to the virus that causes AIDS.
Ross’ lawsuit was filed one day after Sheen was supposed to pay her $1 million to settle all claims against him under a draft agreement that the actor never signed, according to the court filing.
Sheen’s attorney Marty Singer wrote in a statement that Ross’ claims are already being addressed in private arbitration.
“Charlie Sheen intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit filed,” Singer wrote. “Numerous witnesses will dispute each and every claim made by Ms. Rossi.”
Ross first met Sheen in November 2013 and agreed to have sex with the actor for $10,000. They got engaged in January 2014, but their relationship ended later that year.
In addition to Ross’ claim that Sheen didn’t disclose his HIV status, she accuses the actor of physically abusing her throughout their relationship, including kicking her on the ground during one incident and threatening to kill her during other fights.
Not sure if anyone else saw it, but Brett Rossi, going by her real name, was interviewed by Ari Melber, MSNBC’s legal analyst, last night about her lawsuit against Charlie Sheen. She came across as credible on a number of points – either her team or Sheen’s has entered into the record the original contract for $10,000 between Sheen and Rossi for “companionship” – or, as Rossi put it, “so he could have sexual intercourse with me.” In other words, she was escorting. It was a non-disclosure agreement in which Rossi agreed not to reveal any of the details about their relationship. Sheen is now countersuing her saying that her lawsuit and her going public is a breach of their contractual arrangement.
Where she was credible was in talking about her relationship with Sheen and what he did or didn’t tell her. Especially since Sheen’s countersuit (I haven’t read it, just what I listened to during the interview) seems to be predicated on disparaging Rossi’s profession (the suit says she’s a porn star, so I’m guessing that means she can’t be trusted – compared to a junkie?) and claiming breach of a contractual arrangement for him to purchase sex for money.
Where she was incredible – but hey, what do I know – is when she says that she believes Sheen hired a hit man to kill her ex husband. Why? She doesn’t really have a good reason for that.
Melber’s take – it’s pretty unlikely Sheen can get the suit thrown out or win a counter by claiming that she is in breach of their contractual agreement because you can’t have a contract for something that is illegal, i.e., escorting for money. Not saying Rossi can win on his withholding his HIV status or exposing her and potentially others to the disease. Only that Sheen probably can’t get it tossed for the reasons he’s trying to get it tossed.
All of which reminds me of something an older, wiser waiter once said to me when I was a 22 year old just out of college and working in a restaurant while trying to get my first job: Son, sometimes the screwin’ you get ain’t worth the screwin’ you get.
@BT
lots of mud slinging gonna happen on this one.
Saw somewhere that he is claiming she disclosed his status somewhere last spring. That intrigued me enough to add this to reading list once his answer is filed rather than wait till the process weeds out the stuff meant for TMZ from the core issues.
This group of lawsuits could be a game changer on one or more big issues. Could it be the way to decriminalize managed HIV? Will it lead to policy that treats viral loads like speed limits? Could it be a step to legalizing prostitution as a profession in California? Will they toss her claims out as sour grapes of criminal enterprise?
This NDA bit has me intrigued with where it’s gonna go. was he using it to keep from getting screwed or a license to screw? Will that play into weighing intent in the civil forum? Looking forward to your take on it as it plays out.
@LurkingReader – The way Ari Melber explained it, after talking to Hollywood folks, NDA’s are pretty common in the entertainment industry. But, they’re generally part of an employment contract – I’m a star and I hire a personal assistant. I have an NDA as part of the employment contract that prevents the PA from going to TMZ and spilling my secrets. Completely legal, and according to what Melber’s sources told him, very common in Hollywood.
What’s different here is that it was an NDA with an escort. If I understood the reporting (I have not read the filing, so buyer beware), what Sheen’s lawyers are claiming that the contract was simply for Rossi to provide “companionship” to Sheen so the NDA is perfectly legit and enforceable. What Rossi said is that he was paying her $10,000 “to have sexual intercourse with me.” And, that’s where Melber said, you can’t have an NDA for illegal activities. He likened it to a heroin addict trying to have his dealer sign an NDA about their drug transactions.
What I find more interesting, and perhaps we’ll learn more, is that this is a potential window into porn escorting. I never followed Brett Rossi so I have no idea whether she was advertised on Eros or the other escorting websites. All I know is that for most of her career, she was girl/girl and didn’t do guys on film. But, she was apparently also high-end escorting. We read and hear about it all the time, but it may now very well become part of this case and we’ll learn more about how that works. We may learn more about Sheen’s activities – how many other porn stars have escorted for him who may not otherwise have advertised their escorting? No idea, but it could be interesting to learn.
PS – where I think this could be a game changer is the implications for revealing an STD to your fellow performers within the porn industry. If Sheen is found to have had an obligation to reveal his status, despite low viral loads because of Truveda, does that obligation begin and end with HIV. If not, what obligation do porn performers have towards revealing to one another.
And, was Rossi still performing while seeing Sheen? Were other performers also seeing him? Was she or other performers having high risk unprotected sex, such as anal, with him during this time?
I think those things all have implications for the industry.
@BT
I’m with you hesitant to assert any kind of firm idea without reading the actual documents first… if I’m dead wrong I’m not trying to defend someone else’s rationales.
I got the sense that Rossi is asserting that the NDA wasn’t valid because it should have been an employer vs companion contract. Which way is Sheen really going?
A. Paid for companionship not sex… it’s still a compensated situation vs the companion NDA he’s saying she violated.
B. She can’t seek the courts protection for illegal activities…gets him around contracting illegal activities but not away from compensated vs companion NDA.
C. The forest I can’t see for the trees?
Totally agree this will impact the industry but think it’s a ticket to decriminalizing knowledge. As for performer duty to disclose I’m not there in any situation they could be classed as the employee because all our labor laws are geared to place the duty of protection on the employer. The employer must know and take measures to prevent expected risks associated with the usual job activities.
We know the kid sucked into the wood chipper on his first day of work was bad. No training, no supervision, and no barrier to ensure he didn’t feed his leg in like a log to a wood chipper that doesn’t know the difference.
if you have time check out OSHA ALJ order on Kink ? April 2015 and appeals board ruling on TIM from August. There’s a footnote re…vivid v LA county re 1A argument that ought to include BT said it 😉
All these OSHA rulings play into this because the industry went with we are exempt, independent contractor and condom rash vs pushing for PEL (permissible exposure levels) and focusing on HIV when it’s the carcinogens and risks that can’t be mitigated using Truvada (PrEP) that bit them in the ass. Neither criminal knowledge nor anti discrimination gets them around that bump in the road.
ETA…if he paid for companionship then who sexually harassed who in the workplace?
@lurkingreader @BT this is a fascinating thread to follow. I’m an biting my nails waiting for more replies on this. Someone jump in! 🙂
LurkingReader – Mike forwarded me the links and I had a chance to give them a quick read this morning. I won’t waste space here, since no one else but you has read the files, but I’ll send you a note. I’m LOLing on the BT said it, but ….. ah, yeah – said it over and over again.
Here’s the thing I found most fascinating that is relevant to other posts on this site about the Cameron Bay lawsuit. I’m assuming (so save me if I’m wrong) that the Kink investigation was related to the Bay shoot on public disgrace. If my assumption is right, the OSHA finding answers once and for all the question people who think Bay is making up about whether she had a no list and whether her no list was followed.
Kink claims in its filings that it is its practice to have performers fill out no lists before a shoot, and further, that in this instance, there was a list. In fact, it’s one of the documents entered into evidence. One of the no’s was no fisting. And ……. OSHA determined that the no list was not filed and that there was fisting.
So ……. there you go (unless my assumption is wrong).
@BT
I hate busting your bubble anytime, even more so after boosting ya up. Your logic is right but OSHA plays by different rules.
The Kink OSHA ruling shows how many of the claims in the lawsuit have already stood up against a vigorously defended citation process. In that your fascination matches my impressed though none of the lawsuit claims has been established as fact by the civil courts.
Adding to mix
1. Kink can delay the fact finding process of the two suits they are defending by appealing the OSHA ruling through the civil process.
2. OSHA ruling discussions aren’t limited to determined facts. They aren’t fixed points like civil and criminal courts. They’re more like moving targets that might mean one thing here and something else there in the same ruling. The OSHA process is more like an arbitration process where the issue to be determined becomes the fixed point leaving the considerations open to a different interpretation elsewhere.
Bay’s Public Disgrace shoot got the most attention out of at least four.
The No list was 1/6 factors in the employee determination process.
The fisting discussion there only related to a checked box. Kink created then provided the NO list so that indicated employee status.
OSHA’s determination that the NO list wasn’t followed relied on Kinks stated process and the Condom boxes. The fisting box was mentioned but I’m not recalling it as a reason the NO list wasn’t followed. Made a mental note to look when I really read it and looking forward to your take on the questions in the email.
This one has a ways to go before the fat lady sings on anything. 🙂
@lurkingreader I wanted to focus on this sentence you wrote:
“none of the lawsuit claims has been established as fact by the civil courts. ”
Ok. So, let’s just assume that none of this ever reaches civil courts. Let’s assume that all of this is settled quietly and all the dust bunnies are under the rug.
Then what role can OSHA play in improving the industry? Ok so the way I think about it, there should always be checks and balances in the system. (In an ideal world, there should be. But money talks!)
And I’m not even saying that that all types of sex work should be legalized because I don’t think we are there yet. I haven’t read too much about Amsterdam but what little I have read, it seemed to me that there was a broader push for workers rights, but even then that can be taken with a grain of salt, because what does that even really mean? As in, what real world function does it provide in Amsterdam to be a hooker, and to have “broader” protections because the system is legal?
Now what is really, really interesting to me, is that escorting is legal in Australia. I have followed an anonymous escort blog from Australia, and it was very, very surprising to me that she could go to the cops when she was ripped off, and shocker of all shockers, they didn’t blame her or make her feel like shit, her complaint was taken just as seriously as any other random crime.
Ok, and to bring it back into focus into the US and OSHA. Ok so that’s one set of “checks and balances”. It appears the porn industry hates Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare foundation, but let’s be freaking real here, they ARE a check and balance in the system whether people freaking like it or not.
In theory we should also add APAC and the FSC as part of the system of the checks and balances, but I’m sure all of us readers at Mike’s blog know that is a laughable thought. Moving on….
The industry is an ecosystem, right? Mainly people in power, have a vested interest in NOT having a checks and balanced system, because LOL that would just f it all up for those wearing the big hats. Even performer turned company owner has a vested interest in NOT changing the status quo. The system works for them, just the way it is, why would they want it to change?
But when there are serious issues, as we CLEARLY can see that happened in 2015, there has to be a way for these serious issues to be addressed. For what it’s worth, though there is a theoretical check and balance in place, it’s obviously not enough.
LurkingReader – Of course, there is a long way to go before the fat lady sings. I think you’re kind of mixing apples and oranges, when you write that OSHA plays by different rules, etc. Let me explain – and part of the assumption is that the Cameron Bay Public Disgrace shoot is the Public Disgrace shoot referred to in the OSHA filings. But, if not, it doesn’t really matter. Here’s why OSHA is potentially important to the Cameron Bay lawsuit.
At heart, the Bay lawsuit is a personal injury suit. There’s been all kinds of wild statements about, well, if she was raped she should have filed a criminal complaint, if she has HIV she got it from her boyfriend, etc. None of that matter in the context of what is alleged in the suit. In her suit, she is saying that she suffered preventable injuries on the Public Disgrace suit for a variety of reasons, but especially because Kink was not operating a safe workplace – all of the nitty gritty details, like not following her no list, a bloody penis being shoved in her mouth, no one really being in charge of the shoot go to the idea of an unsafe workplace.
Now, she does not have to prove that Kink pretty regularly operates an unsafe workplace – in other words, she doesn’t necessarily need the OSHA findings to prove her case. All she has to prove is that particular shoot was unsafe and irresponsible. I don’t mean to minimize her challenge when I write – all she has to prove – it will be momentous to get there. But, if she gets there, that’s enough. Indeed, Kink could have an exemplary workplace safety record and still be at fault if she can prove they were negligent on that one shoot.
Similarly, Kink will argue, if they have not already, that any findings from OSHA are completely irrelevant to this case (unless the OSHA findings specifically refer to that shoot) because this shoot is all that matters.
When the shooting starts, will not argue that OSHA found against Kink and therefore she’s entitled to civil damages. What she will argue is that OSHA findings against Kink establish a pattern of behavior – this is the way this company does business. She’ll then go on to try to prove her case regarding her specific case.
If the Public Disgrace shoot in the OSHA documents is in fact the Cameron Bay suit, it establishes that another agency investigated allegations and found that it was an unsafe shoot. In particular, it found that the no list was not followed. If it’s another Public Disgrace shoot and is allowed in evidence, that potentially helps Bay because it demonstrates that in other instances Kink had performers fill out no sheets, looking like a model citizen, and then ignored them in the heat of the battle.
Will OSHA in and of itself prove Cameron Bay’s case? Of course, not. It may not even be admitted into evidence. But, if it is admitted into evidence it will provide several big bricks in the foundation that her lawyers will try to build.
To the larger porn industry, to me the potential danger is OSHA’s language about condoms being needed to keep semen and other bodily fluids out of the eyes and noses of performers because those are other potential gateways for infection – slight exaggeration, but doesn’t just about every facial cum shot ever filmed involve a girl wiping semen away from her eyes? And, what about squirting?
Porn always seems to get a pass, so I’m not suggesting that cum police are going to crack down. I’m just saying that if I were the industry, this would worry me because someone could crack down.
@BT
Was trying to say Fisting isn’t a once & for all fact. IMO its relevance relates to consent and for the purposes of OSHA it was a checkbox on a form Kink created and provided in their efforts to ensure worker safety.
“Now, she does not have to prove that Kink pretty regularly operates an unsafe workplace – in other words, she doesn’t necessarily need the OSHA findings to prove her case. All she has to prove is that particular shoot was unsafe and irresponsible. ”
You’re right neither lawsuit needs the OSHA findings to prove the set they worked on was unsafe and they will argue that OSHA findings against kink establish a pattern of behavior. This is where I think Kink messed up with the disappearing OSHA inspection reports. Four became one. One finding doesn’t establish a pattern but four does. Now kink painted themselves into a different corner with the arguments they used to combine four distinct inspections into one. I don’t have a dog in this fight so I let the FOIA requests go. Doesn’t mean they went away or won’t come back to haunt OSHA which is very bad for porn if OSHA gets put under a microscope for their policy adherence. Which they are.
Lurking – if Designator N is Cameron Bay, the OSHA ruling found that she had said no fisting and that based on the evidence, which I assume means they watched the film, fisting occurred. See pages 36 and 37.
“To the extent that the limits specified on this form were work practices which would assist the employee in eliminating or minimizing exposure to BBP, the limits were not followed. Although Designator N did not agree to anal fisting, this in fact appears to have occurred during the filming.”
Now, whether Designator N is or isn’t Bay, it helps her in a lawsuit. If it is Bay, Kink produced the form for OSHA as a way of saying, hey, we have controls in place so that nothing happens that hasn’t been agreed to. Bay said no anal fisting, and, OSHA concluded on the basis of what it saw that, well, anal fisting happened. If it comes down to a pissing contest about whether four fingers or the whole hand constitutes fisting (which is what the director concluded on the set), Kink is potentially, well, fisted.
If it isn’t Bay, and if it is admitted into court, then, it is an example of how the no wishes of other performers were ignored once the cameras rolled – sure, we give you a no list, but we don’t care.
Either way, if admitted into evidence as part of the case, it demonstrates a lack of control on Kink shoots that is helpful to Bay.
Not saying she wins or anything like that. Only that if your entire argument rests on convincing a jury that no didn’t mean no because the director didn’t shove a thumb up Bay’s butt or in her vagina, that’s not a very convincing defense on that part.
@Ivy
It already reached the civil courts, now the question is how will it play out?
“Then what role can OSHA play in improving the industry? Ok so the way I think about it, there should always be checks and balances in the system. ”
First was recognizing the industry at all. In many countries the idea that porn would be regulated just like any other industry is ludicrous. The effects of Freeman are still making ripples in the pond. He wasn’t guilty of a crime, he was employing workers. employer/worker CB (check/balance)
The IRS has made headaches for the industry but they’re limited to determining how much tax is due on the AGI. Gross income is reduced by allowable deductions aka business expenses. The employer deducts wages and taxes are paid by the worker. Another check and balance giving them each separate rights.
Taxes fund worker safety oversight which helps keeps employers honest and workers safer. If a day comes when prostitution is legal OSHA’s role might be similar to what it is for magazine vendors or door to door sales workers. In other words not much because they’re geared for brick/mortar workplaces with ten or more employees so they wouldn’t even look at prostitution outside a bordello unless there are more than ten workers.
AHF is a check and balance to the porn industry. All the checks/balances are interdependent vs co-dependent.
@Ivy
It already reached the civil courts, now the question is how will it play out?
“Then what role can OSHA play in improving the industry? Ok so the way I think about it, there should always be checks and balances in the system. ”
First was recognizing the industry at all. In many countries the idea that porn would be regulated just like any other industry is ludicrous. The effects of Freeman are still making ripples in the pond. He wasn’t guilty of a crime, he was employing workers. employer/worker CB (check/balance)
The IRS has made headaches for the industry but they’re limited to determining how much tax is due on the AGI. Gross income is reduced by allowable deductions aka business expenses. The employer deducts wages and taxes are paid by the worker. Another check and balance giving them each separate rights.
Taxes fund worker safety oversight which helps keeps employers honest and workers safer. If a day comes when prostitution is legal OSHA’s role might be similar to what it is for magazine vendors or door to door sales workers. In other words not much because OSHA is geared for brick/mortar workplaces with ten or more employees so they wouldn’t even look at prostitution outside a bordello unless there are more than ten workers.
AHF is a check and balance to the porn industry. All the checks/balances are interdependent vs co-dependent. We’re all just cogs on a wheel.
@BT
Ty for page that helps. They aren’t condidering fisting the as a violation of her limits there.
It is the Penalty section H on whether or not the employers engineering controls were followed. They were not.
If the limit of no fisting were followed there would have been no exposure to OPIM (fecal matter). OSHA picked that box because it didn’t matter if she said yes or no. If she said yes and the fist wasn’t covered it was still an exposure.
If she said no and they followed it no exposure would have occurred. If she said yes and a barrier was used no exposure. The employer form would have been an effective means to show engineering controls were in place and followed. It showed the opposite.
If Bay is designator N it definitely helps in her lawsuit. Haven’t checked to see if Kink appealed this yet but they’re gonna have a hard time stepping out of the corner they’re painted into.
@BT
Kink filed for a reconderation in June, as of Nov (most recent public info) it’s still in the works. Kink needs the reconderation decision to appeal this thru the civil court process.
This appeal process will delay the two lawsuits. Anytime a company goes for a reconsideration it’s because they have a lot riding on the outcome. For kink it’s not just the lawsuits it’s their at bat to try winning the were too unique to be regulated game.
For the purposes of the lawsuit, which are different from the OSHA violations, it doesn’t matter whether Kink was fined over fisting. It’s that OSHA has documented that there was a no list that was ignored – fisting happened. That’s the point that Bay is making in her lawsuit and, by the way, what folks on this site have said could never have happened. “She’s making it all up.” She’s saying they created an environment that was out of control – where directors and other talent did whatever they wished, ignoring things like no lists, and created an environment that led to Bay’s injuries.
I’d have to reread the original lawsuit and don’t have time to right now, but my memory is that it wasn’t built on the fact that OSHA had fined Kink. It was built on the fact that Bay was severely injured during the shoot – hospitalized because of injuries to her breasts, a bloody penis shoved in her mouth, she was fisted when she said no, and she contracted HIV. OSHA is icing on the cake and helps her prove her case, but its not her case. Her injuries are her case.
@BT
I’m not sure OSHA was ever mentioned in the lawsuits either. Reading this ruling stood out as a ‘oh wow’ got to show this to BT for his take because I knew you read the lawsuit & so many of the allegations in the suit have already stood up against the scrutiny of a separate process.The other part was the vivid suit you followed so closely used as a rationale to defeat the same 1A defense in this decision.
Really I didn’t mean to open Pandora’s box 🙂
I don’t think the she’s making it up crowd realized what a can of worms they were opening. Consent wasn’t presented straight up as an issue in the lawsuit but it’s gonna be huge. I think the she’s full of shit four/five finger Lorelei didn’t rape her arguments evolved into Peter at the mercy of his staff.