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.
Comments
11 Comments on More People add to the UCLA panel discussion, Shelley Lubben on Mr. Marcus and more tax return questions
-
Jim Mazz on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 2:14 pm
-
Julie Meadows on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 4:54 pm
-
3ach on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 4:58 pm
-
3ach on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 5:00 pm
-
Julie Meadows on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 5:50 pm
-
Michael Whiteacre on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 7:17 pm
-
Julie Meadows on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 7:51 pm
-
Anthony Kennerson on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 8:57 pm
-
Harvey on
Tue, 30th Nov 2010 10:46 pm
-
Julie Meadows on
Tue, 7th Dec 2010 2:09 am
-
Sean B. on
Tue, 7th Dec 2010 4:22 am
LL,
“Statistical”? “Empirical Evidence”? Stop using big words, Lydia: I’m easily confused. 
Seriously – nice post! Lubben’s “brutal acts” statement is just garbage – it “poisons the well”.
I thought Kennerson’s critique of the de Cesare article was good (I’ll confess I haven’t read her article yet).
Were Mr. Marcus and Diane Duke given the opportunity to present their own materials?
Yes, but interestingly enough, Mr. Marcus wasn’t prepped with the information that he could present anything other than a personal testimony on behalf of adult industry practices and Diane Duke had to spend a portion of her presentation explaining who she was because the organizer conveniently lost her bio. Not a favorable welcome into the “discussion” for which everyone against the industry was so amply prepared.
She is a huge liar and is so delusional and her disciples are too retarded to even realize that (I got into a skirmish with one on Youtube under the Michael Whiteacre video).
The deluded bitch has completely brain ninjaed me (thanks Dane Cook for that term, brain ninja):
“I AM ON FIRE TODAY!!! Mmmmmm Mmmmmm Porn is definitely coming down. The
LORD Jesus Christ will not be mocked any longer. God Almighty will no
longer tolerate human trafficking in the porn slave trade! Who’s with
me? Who will help Pink Cross continue the terrible fight? And mark my
words, WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL PORN IS ERASED FROM THE FACE OF THIS EARTH!
You can quote me on that porn pimps.”
I don’t know what else to say at this point. She’s become as dangerous as scientology.
Diane Duke did a great job defending the industry, giving the handicap she was facing. Heroic, if you ask me.
It’s a thankless job defending the adult industry. I remember attending a pre-lobbying seminar headed by Kat Sunlove back in 2002. She kept stating, “Look, it’s a legal job. Emotions aside, it’s a human rights issue. We are defending our rights. We pay our taxes and we have as much right as anyone to voice our opinions and state what’s right; what’s fair.” It’s much simpler than it is ever painted to be, so I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. Diane Duke is a brave woman. There aren’t many people who can remain calm and simply state the issues and she did a fabulous job.
There’s also an update in the UCLA panel saga:
Obviously, Mrs. Lubben or one of her acolytes has learned that we’ve found about her efforts to keep dissenting voices away from the UCLA panel by switching the start time from 11:00 am to 2:00 pm.
Now — quite hilariously — Mrs. Lubben has AGAIN switched the start time for her appearance at UCLA (which took place nearly two weeks ago) on her personal website’s “Speaking Schedule” calendar to 10:00 am (which is also an incorrect time)! That’s the kind of person Shelley Lubben is. When caught in a lie, she comes up with another lie.
Dedicated to Mrs. Lubben –
You’re Cinderella with a ball and chain
and the shoe seems to fit you.
You tell the truth sometimes but
you wouldn’t know it if it hit you.
Perfect.
Well done again, Julie…and an excellent recap of my essay.
Yeah, it’s not the most popular thing to defend porn and porn performers these days…but since I’m already pretty much out of the mainstream politically, why not go all the way and defend people who usually get the short end of the stick??
To Jim Mazz: Thanks, but not my critique…Mark Kernes wrote that. I just reposted it. If I can actually find the full article, though, I may be arsed to do a full fisking of it…it does seem to have its full weight in the usual antiporn BS.
And Shelley??? Memo to you, Ministeress: Come on, woman….get off the damn cross and let some homeless person use the freakin’ wood. You have maybe 6 other ex-porn women in your organization. That’s just about as many women enter the industry willingly EACH DAY. You have about as much of a chance to eliminate porn as the Washington Generals have of defeating the LA Lakers. Hell, the Generals have a better chance of defeating the Miami Heat than you do of “erasing porn off the face of this earth.”
Something tells me that in five years or so, we will be seeing a comeback of “ROXY!!!” And I don’t mean as an antiporn activist, either. UNless, that is, she strikes Judith Reisman gold and gets a plum book deal or a government grant to swill her lies about porn, that is. Or, that hidden sex tape of her and Carrie Prejean finally gets exposed.
Anthony
It’s frustrating that the guts of her campaign consists of statistics with no basis.
I just got through saying this to a woman doing research on everything happening. There is so much propaganda at play, and the only reason to resort to such tactics is because you have no clear argument. After that, what’s left?
Actually I think her 6 ex-pornstars have about as much chance of defeating the Miami Heat at basketball as she does of getting rid of porn 
So I have to admit, being a regular guy, I watched one of Slubben’s scenes out of curiosity.
Pretty average, low-budget, stuff. Not ‘brutal’ at all, if anything she was way more physical and aggressive than the guy.
The freakiest thing is although she looks quite a lot different, her voice is exactly the same.
It’s really awkward and disturbing hearing Shelly Lubben telling a guy to fuck her ass, that’s all Im gonna say :p
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
