Whenever I write something like what I’m about to write, even I groan and roll my eyes because nothing ever seems to happen in porn. But, I can’t help myself. Feel free to tell me I’m way off base. That said, if I were porn, this is the kind of suit that would make me worried in the event that Bonnie Rotten does prevail on something other than a contract dispute. For example, if she prevails and wins money because she was under 21, Max should have known better, he’s known for humiliating his talent, etc., that opens the door for every disgruntled newbie to say: I didn’t know what I was doing; the industry should have looked after me. I think it would also put at risk agents who send talent that is under 21 on certain shoots.

Again, this is porn, where the owner of a production company shoots off guns and keeps cocaine on the premises where his directors hogtie, ball gag and cane talent, so what do I know.

so its like a cosy version of person answering CYA questions presented by off screen voice in a green room post event ??? like look ma i’m fine 🙂

“but with Bonnie Rotten’s history in the adult industry”

Will probably be to both their advantages that even if folks like their niche ..they’re too busy using it to get away from office gossip & politics to worry about crap behind the scenes.

Big part of the game is painting each other in worst light possible and presenting best personal profile on paper and if it ever gets that far..in court.

its a shame that doing what you gotta do affects lively-hood…fan base stuff is probably spot on….also expect that women’s rights anti-rape crusaders will have a field day with both of them too if they get a whif of cases.

As for her FAN BASE. I would never watch this girl again. She is pretty much telling us with this lawsuit she doesn’t enjoy what she does. Granted, maybe many of these girls don’t but at least act like you do because as a viewer it’s a huge turn off. I actually like watching Bonnie Rotten videos, and I thought she has been gaining huge steam since her big win at AVN’s this year.

With this lawsuit I think you will see some of her fan base move on to better and more authentic hardcore performers.

making correction to head off any issues re curiosity about using Quiet title possibly implying he is trying to take what isn’t his. pretty ironic since the Quiet Title that can be used by a vacant house squatter is also how defects of title are cured for everything from typos to missing or incorrect addendum’s to prevent any future claims against the titled property.

Still think its easier to quiet a noisy title than quiet derogatory judgmental assumptions on one side or the other.

Agree the under age 21 is one of those over the top not relevant (that I can see) ancillary fluff stuffed into most initial complaints.

Very curious as to why he filed a Quiet Title which is essentially a hostile takeover of someone else’s property.

Debating watching video above to see if it was done before or after she started doing contract scenes or if there’s any reference to it as a commercial vs personal event. Generally prefer reading official documents as they tend to designate facts from the initial story presentations. ig its true she was under 21 but it doesn’t substantiate expectation that they should have known she’d be distressed…so it becomes three facts…1. she was under 21…2 she was distressed…3.she expected Max to accommodate her youth (be it immaturity or blissful ignorance etc) Official docs also usually tell a different story than the many offered by litigants to friends & media.

Re acting…if she makes that argument the outcome would hinge on how convincingly she or attorney presents it. Anna Nicole ring any bells? there’s a situation where there’s 1000 stories for every truth and no way to know which is which.

Bottom line for me is no matter what or how much speculating happens in the process I’m not willing to label either one at fault before its been adjudicated in the proper forum.

Under the age of 21 is meaningless. She was over 18, which is the legal age to perform in an adult video. That’s a little like saying, she was 19, three years over the limit to drive, but she shouldn’t have been trusted with an automobile.

Second, the video in question is filmed at an adult video event. If she’s so delicate, what the heck is she doing at an adult video event. The interviewer says he has interviewed Bonnie Rotten in the past. And she and Max talk about the scene they just filmed together and how hot it was – while she’s sitting on his lap talking about how she likes it rough. Last, she interjected herself into the interview. It’s Max’s show. He didn’t call her over. She walks into the frame, sits on his lap, throws her arm around his shoulders and talks to the camera. She associated herself with him and not the other way around.

I’m not defending Max – I thought his videos were repellant. But, as of the time of that event, she may have been relatively new to the industry, but she was a known quantity to the adult media; she’s sitting on the lap of a pornographer talking about the scene they just filmed together; and the interviewer says to him and her that he can’t wait to see the scene because he likes seeing her naked.

In other words, that interview is in the context of Bonnie Rotten, adult film star. And, she’s using Max Hardcore to promote her career.

That will not be easily explained away under oath. And, I’ll bet a hundred dollars her Illinois attorney had no idea this video was out there.

2257 may be required for each production but that’s easily gotten around placing model signature above date and producer portion. not saying he uses scanned and/or handy copies on record ..in fact the references to an agreement he didn’t sign would lend credence to him obtaining required documentation to publish personal content.

Not returning signed agreement wouldn’t be an issue unless there were still unresolved contract details when he used her signature and documents to publish.