Gelbard & the Mann Act v. Porn Agent Derek Hay: Will 2018 produce different legal results than Gelbard’s 2013 run in with Hay?

FamousCriminals.infospotted on PimpWikiLeaks.com:

The further the Pimpwikileaks researcher digs into publicly available historical data concerning porn industry attorney Allan Gelbard and the recent complaint he filed on behalf of four adult performers (pornstars – all who have chosen to remain anonymous – with the exception of Charlotte Cross) against Derek Hay of LA Direct Models – the more unfortunate of an outcome it seems the complaint is destined to reach (that is if history repeats itself… which it often does).

As reported here on Pimpwikileaks earlier today, Gelbard’s complaint to the California Labor Board names The Luxury Companion (“an unlicensed and illegal escort business”) and Dwight Cunningham aka Dave specifically as being an entity that Derek Hay and LA Direct Models routinely refer their clients to (which is stated in the complaint as being a violation of California Labor code §1700.31)

However, a Google search points to The Luxury Companion being a legal trademarked business that offers “Travel assistance services”, “Entertainment services in the nature of conducting parties and arranging dance performances”, “Transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement. [Internationally]” and “Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities. [Internationally]” (according to the trademark database Justia.com).

As noted in the previous Pimpwikileaks post regarding this issue today, it’s important to remember that in June of 2013 Michael Strother aka Mike South of MikeSouth.com (a blog which today appears to be controlled primarily by Dave of The Luxury Companion and social media operator Kelli Roberts of LA Direct Models) reported a legal notice (threat) sent by attorney Allan Gelbard to Derek Hay in regards to the pornstars known as The Starr Sisters (Natasha Starr and Natalia Starr).

Considering how today Natalia Starr appears to be represented by LA Direct Models (Xbiz announced her return to Derek Hay’s agency in 2016) AND Natalia Starr’s apparently active listing on The Luxury Companion – is this legal complaint REALLY “4 pornstars v. Derek Hay” OR “Alan Gelbard and the Free Speech Coalition v. Derek Hay”?

By no means does Pimpwikileaks condone Derek Hay’s allegedly unethical and criminal actions – however it’s important to note for historical purposes that Hay was a target of extreme homophobic harassment and hate crime by several American pornography industry staples (namely The Founder of Pornwikileaks) for several years.

When Gelbard took to the legal battlefield against Derek Hay in 2013, he referenced The Mann Act as part of the reason why Natasha and Natalia Starr’s contracts with LA Direct Models were not valid or enforceable. Veteran pornography blogger Michael Strother aka Mike South provided commentary on the situation by stating:

What I found interesting here are two things in particular…one is that Gelbard would threaten criminal action under “The Mann Act”  for starters if Gelbard did dime out people on The Mann Act it wouldnt be LA Direct that would be charged, but the producers who paid for the transportation, secondly it is really a no no for a lawyer to threaten criminal prosecution in a civil matter, which this is.

It also seems really poor form to me for Gelbard take it to this extreme when it appears theres only a couple months left on the contract anyway but I may be reading that wrong.

Gelbard’s 2013 legal notice doesn’t appear to have launched a situation that resulted in LA Direct Models having to face off against either Natasha or Natalia Starr in a United States court – which MAY be due to the national origin of the Starr sisters (they are immigrants from Eastern Europe).

LA Direct Model’s official response to Gelbard’s legal notice concerning the Natasha and Natalia Starrstated the following:

License No: TA ? 3872
Re: Actors:
Magdalena [redacted] p/k/a Natasha Starr
Katarzyna [redacted] p/k/a Natalia Starr
06 / 27 / 2013
Via: Certified Mail/ RR
CC E?mail: xxxesq@aol.com
Alan B Gelbard,
15760 Ventura Blvd, Suite 801,
Encino, CA 91436

Dear Mr Gelbard,
This communication is for settlement purposes only and all information conveyed is subject to the confidentiality provisions of California Evidence Code § 1152 and Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and may not be used for any other purpose or proceeding.”
1. Please be advised in the first instance, that the Artist / Agency Agreement between Ms Kataryzyna [redacted] p/k/a Natalia Starr and this Agency remains in full force and effect and is not terminated. Neither shall it be terminated unless and until one of the following actions occur,
(a) Decision at conclusion of administrative process to determine same at Dept of Labor Standards of Enforcement.
(b) Superior court judge decision following legal proceeding to litigate same.
(c) Expiration date of Agreement.
2. The Artist / Agency Agreement between Magdalena [redacted] p/k/a Natasha Starr was terminated on June 12th 2013 by mutual agreement. Ms Magdalena [redacted] has since been sent both Email and registered mail, written communications confirming same. Ms [redacted] visited the Agency office on 06 / 21 / 2013, met with Agency head accountant and closed out her financial affairs.
3. Your allegations A is incorrect, disputed, lacks merit and substance and is in fact common ‘ custom and practice’ in all elements of talent Agency representation of actors both within the ‘adult industry ‘ and in the ‘mainstream industry’ of television, feature film and theatrical stage. Such matter has been widely litigated previously and decision found in favor of the Agencies on same by DLSE administrative process. For the record the standardized fee provided to Agency for the casting of its Talent, in no way has any relevance to or bearing on, the fee negotiated by Agency on behalf its Actor client.

4. Your allegation B – is wholly without truth nor merit since Direct Models does not book ‘privates’ and without question you have no evidence to support such a claim. Direct Models only accepts and negotiates employment for its Artists from legitimate studios, directors and producers and at all times conducts itself in a manner befitting and according to that to be expected and lawfully required, of a professional and licensed
Talent Agency.

Further, allegation of violation of the Mann Act, a federal criminal statute, and California Penal Code §§ 266i(a) (1,2) – State felony pandering, is a violation of the ABA Canons of Professional Responsibility on your part. “A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.” Knowing that such claim entirely lack supporting evidence, it could also be the case that you are “knowingly making a false statement or fact”, equally a violation of the same Canons.

It is widely known that Sydney Coca made such allegation to you and others, for he makes public comment on same at social gatherings. Given that ‘ Sydney Coca aka Raul’ husband of Magdalena [redacted] has previously and
continues now, to arrange for the booking of both sisters for ‘privates’ a pseudonym for acts of prostitution, and continues to do so even as these communications go back and forth, one wonders as to the credibility that will be afforded testimony from him that licensed Agency acted in the manner alleged. Lest there be any misunderstanding there are numerous person that will attest to his aforementioned activity and only this past week he has arranged for and administrated the enlistment of the sisters with the escort agency aka ‘front for prostitution’ known as ‘Pam Peaks’ with website at www.pamelapeaks.com.

Mr Coca’s efforts in this regard are not either limited to his own booking of the sisters or to their placement with an escort service for booking for ‘privates’ , for Mr Coca also drives the sisters to and from such bookings and charges
each a commission from their earnings.

Be advised that it is Direct Models intent to publicize your threat of the ‘Mann Act” and California Penal Code to the adult entertainment industry.

6. Your allegation C – is disputed. Documents pertinent to the Talent Agencies Act and the Agreement created between Artist and Agency are approved by Labor Commissioner and nothing in any other document is detrimental to the interest of the Artist. In fact, suggested codes of behavior and reasonable standards of practice to be observed, only benefit Artist and the Agencies ability to best represent Artist to the benefit of Artist. Such suggestion is neither a violation of the Talent Agencies Act.
7. Kataryzyna [redacted] p/k/a Natalia Starr is an “Artist”, within the meaning of Labor Code §1700.4(b) and Direct Models Inc is a licensed talent agency. California Labor Code §1700.44(a) provides in relevant part. “ In cases of controversy arising under this chapter the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner”..You are well aware of the administrative process for determining controversy that exist regarding Talent Agencies and that all administrative remedies must be exhausted before other proceeding. I suggest that remedy be sought as statutorily prescribed, and more appropriately be dropped. Be apprised that attorney fees recovery in California is mutual and goes to the prevailing party.
8. You are informed that your clients have allowed it to become widely known the amount of your fee, which be so small as to clearly not be commensurate on a professional basis with the work involved and therefore gives rise to opine if the ligation threatened be not so much in the interest of your client but your own. Direct Models has good reason to believe that such practice and circumstance extend beyond the clients named here but also with regard to others in similar actions against other talent agencies for which your law practice is equally becoming widely known. One wonders therefore if you yourself have in fact become the protagonist and merely use the client as a pawn with which to maneuver.

Once again this is a breach of ABA Canons of Professional Responsibility that prescribe “a lawyer should always act in a manner consistent with the best interest of his client” and additionally that “ attorney may not acquire a proprietary interest in the litigation”. If the motivation for the action be to seek termination of the Artist / Agency
Agreement – other attorneys have achieved same with mutual agreement in short order,
utilizing good faith negotiation, where your method has not.

9. As the Premier Talent Agency in the adult entertainment industry ? Direct Models is proud to hold several exclusive contractual relationships with producers of conventions one of which is indeed Exxxotica show. None of our Artists are ‘employed’ at these shows and the show at no time has ‘paid nor employed ‘ any Artist through Direct Models for appearance at such a show. It has already been clearly stated in this letter as to the mutual termination of Agency Agreement with ‘Magdalena [redacted] p/k/a Natasha Starr, who is free to book herself however and with whomever, she or her husband choose to do so.
Kataryzyna [redacted] p/k/a Natalia Starr is not included in those Artists scheduled to appear via Direct Models at next Exxxotica show, though has been in the past and will be again in the future. The show reasonably requires that Direct Models provide variation to its Artist schedule from show to show.

Noted is your demand to respond within 24 hrs because of your impending vacation.

Response is made in a timely manner and within a time frame that would ordinarily be considered reasonable. Direct Models does not feel compelled to hurry such a response by falsely created time frame nor impending vacation.
Nothing in this letter is intended as, nor shall be construed as, an admission against the interest of Direct Models, nor a waiver of any claims, rights, remedies or defenses, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.

Sincerely,
Derek Hay on behalf of Direct Models Inc.

As attorney Alan Gelbard and Derek Hay prepare to square off again in the legal sphere, this time around with at least one pornstar who is American of caucasion decent, Gelbard MAY have a better chance at getting Derek in legal trouble – however considering that Natalia Starr IS BACK with Derek AND The Luxury Companion much doubt could feasibly be cast upon the complaint as of current.

Will Gelbard’s legal complaint set precedent for future legal matters against alleged escort operations such as HelpUBookHer, Pamela Peaks and the alleged activities of controversial adult industry figures such as Trinity St Claire? Will the only pornstar who’s lent her stage name so far (Charlotte Cross) end up back with LA Direct Models and listed on The Luxury Companion as Natalia Starr did? Only time will tell, as nowadays only LEGAL pimps like Dennis Hof appear to be in the clear (and are even nominated as Republican political candidates in the state of Nevada).