More People add to the UCLA panel discussion, Shelley Lubben on Mr. Marcus and more tax return questions

Anthony Kennerson has written more about Shelley Lubben. He writes a post walking through Lubben’s own blog post on the UCLA discussion panel on condoms in the adult industry and her non-fact-based opinion of Mr. Marcus’ performance as a performer. This detail did not escape Mr. Kennerson. First, Shelley’s comment:

“Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) who was there on behalf of the producers defended the industry’s current testing system as ‘remarkable’ but it was pointed out that testing ‘does not prevent anything.’ Current porn star Mr. Marcus, a 17 year veteran of the industry who has appeared in over 50 gangbang movies and who is known for his brutal acts in porn, showed up to defend the industry – yet in a meeting that was filled with testimony of violence against women and damage to the reproductive health of women, it was hardly convincing.”

Anthony writes:

“But to call out Marcus for participating in gangbangs and especially for his “brutal acts” in porn??  Priceless…especially given his actual reputation is exactly the polar damn opposite of anti-woman brute. Countless veteran porn women have given flowing testimony to his ability to maximize their pleasure over his, and his total and complete sensitivity to thrir orgasms. Hell, he’s even been featured in many of Nina’s Nina Hartley Sex Guides video series fir that very purpose. And that even includes the women featured in all those gangbangs.

All I want to know is this, Shelley: did YOU manage to have sex with Mr. Marcus during your bit as “ROXY!!!!!” And if you didn’t, then how in the HELL would you know about how “brutal ” he really is??”

It’s a reasonable question considering Shelley Lubben, a.k.a. Roxy, never worked with Mr. Marcus. In fact, they had never met until that panel discussion and Roxy would not know what Mr. Marcus is like or about. How does she know he performs “brutal sex acts”? She would have to say how she knows that for us to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is a reliable source for that information. Should someone representing an industry speak about people they don’t know? Lubben often speaks about people in the industry she does not know, but then Lubben always says a lot without reference to her information. Her statistics don’t have references. How is one to believe statistics that are not backed by empirical evidence? A statistic is data compiled through actual study. Where is the evidence? How do we know the information she gives is true? It appears it is pulled from out of thin air. Facts may not be important to Lubben, but they are important to the rest of us.

Mark Kernes writes more about the UCLA discussion and walks through the files sent out to the people who requested them. AVN’s site is NSFW, but Anthony Kennerson graciously reposts the article in its entirety on his SFW blog. It is interesting what is uncovered when searching for actual facts. Mark Kernes covers quite a lot on all fronts.

And I’d just like to highlight again the facts found by Cameron Rowe on the 2009 Pink Cross tax return. There is more information added, including $350 spent on gift cards, and $2,515 on “postage and mailing service”. And remember, this is the second return submitted. My husband, Doug, walked through what appears to be irresponsible spending on the part of Lubben and the foundation, and then the return was replaced by a completely different return–the one Cameron dissects with questions about what appears to be, still, irresponsible spending. Why the second return? And why is there no indication on Pink Cross’ website as to why, suddenly, the return was switched?

I’ve been asking questions since my first post about Lubben and Pink Cross Foundation on Mike South’s site. None have been answered that would leave me to believe that 1) models receive professional counseling, 2) models receive real financial help and 3) that Shelley Lubben doesn’t use the foundation as her personal piggy bank. The most important questions sill go unanswered, but I’ll keep asking them until something makes sense. I’ll leave you to ask your own questions about these returns. There are some incredible differences from one to the other.

I’ve lined up the financial records stamped as “Received” from GuideStar.org next to the old 2009 return and then the new 2009 return. Click the picture to see the full image. Maybe you’ll have better luck deciphering these numbers.

Old return, new return–this page isn’t available through the IRS filed return.

Old return, new return–this page isn’t available through the IRS filed return.

The first one is from the filed return, second two are from the new 2009 return.

The old return–this page doesn’t come with the filed or new posted return.

The next four are only available through the newly posted 2009 return.

First the filed return, then the new return.

First the filed return, then the new return.

This page only exists on the filed return.