AdultBizLaw.com - Fattorosi & Chisvin

As published on XBiz.com on Friday, February 27, 2009
by: Nikki Tang

WOODLAND HILLS, Calif. — Adult industry promoter Kevin Blatt, attorney Michael Fattorosi of Fattorosi & Associates and Daniel Underhill of Keyframe Multimedia Inc. have partnered to launch third-party record-keeping service 2257Safe.com at the Phoenix Forum in April.

In anticipation of the upcoming launch, 2257Safe.com is currently undergoing beta testing by Y-Tracker and AdultBizLaw.com clients, and is seeking others who are interesting in trying out the new service and providing feedback to its creators.

2257Safe.com, which is a rewritten version of the Y-Tracker program, according to Underhill, will help affiliates, as well as primary and secondary producers, maintain their records by serving as a virtual storage facility for all things 18 U.S.C. § 2257.

“We took the Y-Tracker, a desktop program that has been available since 2008, and completely rewrote it,” Underhill told XBIZ. “We’ve collaborated with Fattorosi to completely rewrite the program. It’s now completely web-enabled, so the user will be able to log in to 2257Safe.com from any web browser from anywhere in the world and maintain his or her records on the fly.”

Fattorosi added that 2257Safe.com clients would also not have to worry about inspections occurring in front of their friends and neighbors because the address used on the compliance notice will be the address for Fattorosi & Associates; as such, all inspections will occur at the law firm.

“With the change in the regulations governing 2257, third-party record-keepers are now not only allowed, but also seemingly encouraged by the federal government,” Fattorosi told XBIZ. “2257Safe.com will give everyone who is afraid of having his or her home address on a compliance notice the ability to remain anonymous.”

Upon launch, all records will also be stored and maintained on PCI-DSS compliant servers, which are “the gold standard in the banking and credit card processing industries,” according to Fattorosi.

“We want to provide the same level of security to our clients that they would expect from any other service that stores and maintains sensitive personal information,” he said, adding that 2257Safe.com will also be fully insured for up to $2 million for errors and omissions, as well as security liability.

Blatt, who agrees that the site’s anonymity will definitely “give a lot of affiliates and webmasters peace of mind,” cites PCI Compliance as the most attractive feature of 2257Safe.com. Since banks and credit processors have the same level of security, “PCI [compliance] is about as secure as you can get. No one else has factored in PCI Compliance, so this is probably the biggest sales point [of 2257Safe.com].”

Blatt and Underhill added that although the specific price points have not been determined yet, membership would be affordable since the site is geared specifically toward smaller and medium-sized webmasters.

“We’ve already got a waiting list for the launch,” Blatt said. “It’s going to be amazing, and we’re really excited about it.”

Underhill added that, “From what I’ve seen, I really think that this service will be the granddaddy of all third-party record-keeping services. [2257Safe.com] will be very cutting-edge. I don’t think anyone else out there will be able to approach what we’re doing. What we’re coming out with is going to set the standard.”

The service will be formally released at the Phoenix Forum at Tempe Mission Palms on April 2-4.

For more information on 2257Safe.com, visit 2257Safe.com, or contact Blatt at kb@kevinblatt.com, Underhill at support@ytracker.com or Fattorosi at michael@fattlegal.com.

Published in XBiz.com on Friday, February 20, 2009
by:Stephen Yagielowicz

LOS ANGELES — The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld the 18 U.S.C. § 2257 federal record-keeping law in the long-contested Connections case.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Sutton addressed what he sees as the critical question in this issue:

“Under what circumstances is it appropriate to invalidate a law in all of its applications when its invalidity can be shown [or assumed] in just some of its applications?” Sutton wrote. “When we think about the problem that way, it is hard to understand who is being hurt by resisting the plaintiffs’ call to invalidate the statute on its face.”

Sutton went on to discuss the hypothetical middle-aged couple shooting their own erotica — a practice used as an example of the burdensome requirements of the statute.

“Over twenty years and numerous administrations, the statute has never been enforced in this setting, and the attorney general has publicly taken the position that he will not enforce the statute in this setting,” Sutton wrote. “On the other side of the equation, we are being asked to invalidate a law in its entirety based on a worst-case scenario that, to our knowledge, has never occurred, that may never come to pass and that has not been shown to involve a materially significant number of people.”

According to attorney Gregory A. Piccionelli, “The majority opinion is a piece of pretzel-logic that utterly fails to address any of the well-reasoned arguments made in the original Sixth Circuit panel’s invalidation of the regulations.”

“It is, pure and simple, an outcome oriented opinion by the majority, comprising mostly conservative republican-appointed jurists, that, as we expected, were going to save 2257 at any cost,” Piccionelli told XBIZ. “It is both sad and dangerous that conservative culture warriors occupy seats on many of our highest courts.”

Opposing the ruling was Circuit Judge Helene N. White, who in writing a dissenting opinion stated her belief that “under intermediate scrutiny the identification/record-keeping requirements of 2257 impose an unconstitutional burden on plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.”

While White expressed reluctance over the prospect of invalidating 2257 in its entirety, she agreed with Kennedy that “2257’s sweep is so broad … and its burdens so potentially chilling of protected speech, that requiring case-by-case challenges to its overbreadth is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence.”

Part of White’s reasoning was based on the number of people that the regulations impact, which she acknowledged to be in the millions, saying “…we do know that millions of adults exchange or share personally-produced sexually-explicit depictions.” She cited a court exhibit listing more than 13 million “personal ads containing sexually-explicit text and images on a single website for sex and swinger personal ads.” Of the examined ads, 94 percent involved adults over 21 years of age.

To this observer, the court’s flexible attitude towards interpreting 2257 and its ability to accomplish the goal of protecting children while imposing the least burden on protected expression was well summed up by Circuit Judge Clay: “…although the government will always have a significant interest in eradicating and prosecuting cases of child pornography, the nature of the burden imposed by a particular statute may become more evident over time.”

Piccionelli agrees that the statute’s continued flaws should inspire hope in its eventual overturn and that operators should not lose faith due to this ruling.

“2257 is a constitutional abomination,” Piccionelli added. “We will win in the end.”

Not everyone seems as optimistic, however. As for the future of the statute, “it really comes down to whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case,” attorney Larry Walters told XBIZ. “But that is much less likely to happen since the circuit court upheld the law, rather than overturned it.”

Walters also pointed to this case as a good example of how conservative judges are finding ways of nitpicking away at a plaintiff’s overbreadth challenges and imposing legal hurdles that can be difficult to overcome — including the requirement of producing substantial evidence of unconstitutional applications of a statute before it will be struck down on First Amendment grounds.

The upholding of 2257 presents a possible immediate threat to the industry as well:

“Webmasters [and others] should be much more concerned about possible inspections and prosecutions,” Walters said. “Now that the law has been upheld, 2257 inspections could resume at any time.”

Published on AVN.com on February 18, 2009

LOS ANGELES - Adult star Devinn Lane has dropped complaints against Vivid Entertainment Group, Digital Playground and other defendants from her ongoing lawsuit against several adult and digital media companies.

The former Wicked Pictures contract star filed suit last October in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleging that the companies profited from domain names similar to Devinn Lane without compensating her.

In recent court filings, Lane dismissed her claims against Digital Playground, Vivid, Moniker Online Services, Domains by Proxy, and Dotster. She is still seeking damages, attorney’s fees, and an injunction against the companies Privacy Protect and Pixel.

According to Lane, Privacy Protect owns DevinnLaneCash.com and Hawaii-based Pixel owns Devinn-Lane.com. Both sites are currently inactive.

Lane’s attorney, Michael Fattorosi, declined comment on the case and Lane’s reasons for dropping her complaints against the two major adult studios.

Lane performed in more than 70 adult movies, receiving AVN’s Best Actress award in 2003 for her performance in Michael Raven’s Breathless. She directed several volumes of The Devinn Lane Show for Wicked Pictures in 2002, and has since directed other titles for Wicked, New Sensations, Metro, Shane’s World, Cinema Play, and Sin City.

Published in XBiz.com on Thursday, February 19, 2009 By: Nikki Tang

PARAMOUNT, Calif. — Gentlemen’s club magazine Stiletto and its distributor, J’s Distributing, filed a complaint Wednesday against the city of Paramount, Calif., after officials removed the magazines from stands in an effort to enforce a city ordinance meant to protect minors.

“[City officials] obviously didn’t look at my client’s magazine before they took the action that they did,” said Michael Fattorosi, attorney for Stiletto and J’s Distributing. “There’s nothing obscene or adult about Stiletto magazine. What’s in the pages of Stiletto magazine is nothing more than you would see on primetime TV. There are no nude pictures and no depictions of sexual activity.”

The “Newsrack Ordinance,” adopted in Jan. 2008, is intended “to reduce hazards for potential accidents, alleviate blight and to limit access to materials deemed harmful to minors,” according to the complaint. It holds that “harmful” periodical covers must be hidden “so that the lower two thirds are hidden from the view of the public,” and that newsstands containing such publications must be guarded by an adult who checks the IDs of those who express interest in purchasing them.

In an effort to enforce the ordinance, city officials sent a letter to J’s Distributing owner Tom Lee on Feb. 8, informing him that Stiletto, a magazine that focuses on gentlemen’s clubs throughout Southern California, contained “harmful” material and needed to be removed from stands immediately. The letter threatened with impounding by the city and a fee of $200 for retrieval of the impounded magazines. After more letters and a meeting between Lee and the city officials, the city pulled Stiletto, as well as several other adult-oriented publications, from the newsstands.

“The city of Paramount really gave me a hard time,” Lee told XBIZ. ” I’m tired of being kicked out and losing thousands of dollars of machinery just because somebody doesn’t like the look of something.”

Fattorosi added that, “Stiletto magazine is a magazine that reports on and discusses activities and goings on at gentlemen’s clubs in Southern California, but in no way could it be considered material that is harmful to children. For Paramount to make this decision is a violation of my clients’ First Amendment rights. I feel very confident that we will win this case.”

Other affected publications, including LA Xpress magazine and Private Dancer magazine, may join Stiletto and J’s Distributing in the lawsuit, according to Lee.

Officials from the city of Paramount were not available for comment at time of post.

Published in XBiz.com on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 By: Rhett Pardon

PHOENIX — The owner of TheEroticReview.com has been arrested in Phoenix on murder conspiracy charges after allegedly hiring a hit man to kill an online adult model who sued him last year.

David Elms, of Torrance, Calif., was arrested Sunday after an interview by officers from the Phoenix Police Department’s Special Assignments Unit.

Police said they got the tip from a suspect in an ongoing probe over DesertDivas.net, which allegedly operated a prostitution ring servicing about 6,500 clients.

Phoenix police said that Elms was seeking to contract out a hit to have a 32-year-old woman killed, as well as a 62-year-old male victim seriously injured.

That 32-year-old woman was identified by adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi of Fattorosi & Associates as an online adult model and escort he represents in a federal suit in Los Angeles over cybersquatting claims.

The Long Beach, Calif., model, named as a Jane Doe in the suit, said she fears for her life because her home address was allegedly published on TheEroticReview.com.

Fattorosi told XBIZ he was satisfied that Elms was arrested.

“I’m pleased David Elms has been brought up on charges,” Fattorosi said. “He has victimized and terrorized numerous women in the adult entertainment industry.”

Fattorosi identified the 62-year-old victim as “Dave in Phoenix,” operator of the website SexWork.com.

SexWork.com has been known to attack Elms and TheEroticReview.com in its editorial content.

The owner posted a message on the site that reads: “I am not going to go into details at this time since I am working with the Phoenix Police major crimes unit and with police protection considerations.”

On Tuesday, XBIZ obtained booking information relative to the Elms arrest, including how he allegedly wanted to knock off the model and seriously hurt the website owner.

According to detectives, a tape-recorded phone call was made from an informant to Elms, who agreed to drive to Phoenix and hire subjects to commit a murder and purchase a firearm.

“On Feb. 15, the defendant arrived in Phoenix and met with undercover detectives and arranged for the assault on one victim, which involved breaking his legs,” police records said. “The second victim was a female who was to be either murdered or assaulted depending on the outcome of their court case.

“Defendant agreed to pay $3,000 for the assault and also paid $500 for the purchase of one-half ounce of cocaine. Defendant also wanted to purchase a Walther 22 handgun from either the informant or undercover detectives.”

Police said that Elms is currently on probation in California for drug possession and is prohibited from leaving the state.

They also said Elms’ vehicle was searched and a glass pipe used to smoke crack cocaine was recovered.

“Defendant was interviewed and admitted he was on probation, was there to purchase a firearm and crack cocaine from undercover detectives, which he thought were actual suspects,” police said. “As for the glass pipe, the defendant denied that it was his but admitted his fingerprints would be recovered from this item. The defendant also admitted that he ordered the assault of one of the victims but denied the murder conspiracy.”

In her civil complaint filed last year, Doe not only makes infringement claims but also includes charges of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, because Elms allegedly used the model’s real birth name in a domain name.

The complaint alleges that “Elms directed his anger and vengeance at Doe because she refused to engage in sexual intercourse with him and because Doe refused to allow her name to be published on a website he controls.”

Doe, who owns a members-only subscription website through her Kentucky-based company BFN LLC, said that she learned of Elms’ website, which uses her real birth name and images of her, in March.

Elms also is accused of sending a letter to Doe’s family and friends, informing them that she is a prostitute. As a result, she said, her immediate family has severed all ties with her.

“Elms embarked upon a crusade to ruin Doe’s life, in order to get back at her for her refusal to have sexual intercourse with him,” the suit said.

In the Phoenix arrest, Elms was booked into Maricopa County Jail for one count of conspiracy to commit murder, one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, one count of conspiracy to possess narcotic drugs for sale, one count of conspiracy to commit misconduct involving weapons and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia.

Elms’ Phoenix arrest is not the first brush with the law.

The New York Times reported last year that a deputy New York district attorney said Elms was criminally charged after a night in 2006 when police were called to a hotel where they found him with 3.8 grams of cocaine and a loaded semi-automatic weapon.

A prostitute was there and said Elms had forced her to perform oral sex at gunpoint, but there was not enough evidence to press charges on that accusation, the deputy district attorney told the Times.

Phoenix police said that the defunct DesertDivas.net based in Phoenix, also known as Night Partners Entertainment, had organizational ties to Philadelphia and Albuquerque, N.M.

Police investigated the group for a year before serving nine search warrants Aug. 5. Since then, 38 people have been arrested in connection with the Phoenix branch of the organization.

Elms’ TheEroticReview.com hosts escort reviews, site reviews, discussion boards and live chat. Visitors rank their experiences with prostitutes on a scale of 1 to 10, as well as to leave comments. It reportedly gets 500,000 to 1 million unique visitors each month.