Studio Case Update - Phoenix
 
 All information is in the public record and all names have been deleted.
On 3/6/2017 the State rested after 25 trial days.

Before the defense case starts 3/20, a flood of motions by the State and many hearings and continuances.  Having been in this same judge's court observing the Goddess Temple case, often these motions are deferred until related testimony is attempted at trial when an objection can be raised and ruling made in absence of the jury.

Defense filed a special action to the Court of Appeals to stay proceedings but Appeals Court refused it.

Defense now has 3 attorneys, although the latest lead attorney has filed a motion to withdraw after meeting with the State ethics board and certain matters.   (He has had various prior attorneys or advisory attorney's withdraw over the years the case has been in Court.) One of the current attorney's is "R" I talked a lot with who represented a defendant in the Temple case.  Especially he talked to me about the witness that testified he was hired by the DOD to provide prostitutes for the Navy via Isreal (long story I reported on before).

Huge motion fight all exceeding 15-page limit with courts permission over the Qsee QS-106 DVR recorder and how copies of hard drive obtained and if tampered with or not. State argues they were only security camera's not part of "behind the scenes" production videos vs, Defense wants them admitted to show the "deep throat" scene was not sexual assault as one worker claims. Because the machine is so hard to copy an investigator bought identical recorder on E-bay to see and copy the hard drive.  

State's motion was 36 pages and defense was also very long. Ten studio women testified for the State they were told the cameras were only for security and never told they would be used for "behind the scenes" commercial use and never authorized their release.  Most had taken felony plea deals with probation vs risk long prison terms related to the overall criminal enterprise charges.

 State motioned to preclude testimony defense questioning witnesses chastity with numerous case cites.
 
 State motioned to preclude defense questions of a detective on his integrity regarding a 1996 issue related to an illness.  
 
 State motioned to preclude any porn defense based on A.R.S. 13-3502 with cites including the three prongs in the famous M... vs Calf porn case.  Dave notes the AZ law requires porn to be "obscene" to be a felony, which may be a huge legal issue like in the CA case.
 
 State moved to preclude an "advice of counsel" defense.
 
 State moved to preclude admission of self-serving hearsay which relates it seems to statements before his arrest.  
 
 State moved to compel video evidence related to the "deep throat" sexual assault charge.
 
 Dave notes other than the alleged "deep throat" incident this is another costly State battle against 16 consenting adults in the 2013 raid of the Studio after an extensive costly undercover investigation.  
 
 Dave notes long before the raid I had warned the owner that all other porn studio cases in Phoenix had been lost.  However, none of the prior cases have been as aggressively defended as this one.
 
 I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice which can only be obtained by a competent lawyer.

With regard to the terms "porn" and "obscene", can porn be not obscene and still be porn?  IMHO, porn is more than simple nudity, even nudity with an overtly sexual interest.  If the latter were porn, then a whole bunch of great art in the most august museums would have to be off limits.

It strikes me as the proverbial distinction without a difference.

Also, as SCOTUS rulings go, does obscenity lack First Amendment protection?

Most porn was ruled not obscene in CA and forget the other state.  And in CA all sorts of requirements for porn and the actors are members of an actors union, they are paid by the studio, not the person "getting" sex etc.    

in my view the Studio case is a straight prostitution case not porn since guys paid to have sex with the gals and the camera was just the excuse and didn't follow any of the rules in CA which is the only state porn is legal to shoot.  

The porn defense is interesting, but I doubt it will work as I warned him a decade ago.  But I could be wrong!  If he wins "porn studios" may open up every few miles!

to inoculate themselves from LE by setting up a camera and claiming that the activity is not sex for pay, but legally protected porn making.

To this are then trotted out the plethora of needs that must be arranged such as licenses of various types, incorporation records, tax records, etc.

I just don't see it ever happening.

Actually, the Studio did a decent job of being a porn studio except the guys paid the Studio vs in a porn video the Studio pays all the actors. And in CA have to be member of an actors guild etc.. i.e, real porn actors. At the Studio there was no director, repeat scene shoots etc.  As I understand it they just had sex with the camera rolling as an excuse to get the sex.

The Studio did have model agreements, distribution agreements to get online to a limited extent etc.  Although the "behind the scenes" camera shots were only recently put online to buy while H. was in jail for over a year since he could not make bail,  and only when that camera became an issue in the "deep throat" scene 1 gal claims was sexual assault.   But that is a separate count from the criminal enterprise, money laundering (every time a deposit is made), and house of prostitution charges of the Studio.

They also have a registered with the State their corp, trade name (NM) etc.  Assume filed taxes and money laundering was from bank records which I believe were good in the corp name.

Here is a question or a possible issue about to rise.

Lots of "pornstars" are doing "premium snapchat"... ie: A person subscribes to that snap chat.  Or others are selling "personal vids" on fan sites.   Not personal websites but something like only fans dot com.    Anyways.... some of these "snaps" or "vids" are hardcore.    

Now my question is.... are they considered "porn" and now have the same regulations as porn studios?   Because it is illegal to shoot "porn" or to profit off of porn in certain states.   That is why only certain states have the production...ie: Cali, Vegas, Miami.    

Just wondering if they are finding away around the system or are they setting themselves of for a heap of shit.