Summer Luv Said She Enjoyed Working with Max; Prosecution Rests

TAMPA - A former porn actress testified today that she enjoyed her work with a hard-core porn producer, who is on trial for federal obscenity charges relating to his movies that depict forced sex, violence, vomiting and urination.

Melissa N********, 25, who went by the stage name Summer Luv, testified that she acted in the movies because the scenes sounded interesting to her, she enjoyed filming them, and she voluntarily signed up for more work with the producer.

"I'm kind of an extremist," the perky young blonde explained.

Also today, prosecutors rested their case and a team of defense attorneys asked the judge to throw out the charges, saying they had not been proven. The judge will rule on that request Tuesday morning.

California producer Paul L. Little, who goes by the stage name Max Hardcore, and his company, MaxWorld Entertainment, face five counts each of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and five counts each of distributing obscene material through the mail.

N******** testified that she was 21 when she first met Little. She had worked for other pornography producers but found Little and his company to be more organized and more accommodating of actresses.

"In comparison, it was a lot better," she testified.

Little took more than an hour to explain each scene, what would happen and ensure that she was willing to play the part, N******** testified.

She said she was paid between $1,000 and $1,500 per scene and up to $10,000 for movies filmed in Brazil.

One time, N******** testified, she backed out of doing a scene at the last minute. Little did not mind and paid her anyway, she said.

She said she eventually got out of the business and now works as an administrative assistant for a construction company in Las Vegas.

"I grew up," she said. "I had a son and I'm just being a mommy."

After her testimony, N******** told reporters that she doesn't understand why prosecutors filed charges against Little.

"I don't see what the whole crime is," she said. "It seems like kind of a waste of time to me."

Jurors must determine if the movies are obscene based on contemporary community standards for the Tampa area.

Defense attorneys argued to U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew that Little sold his movies to an independent video distributor. That distributor, Jaded Video, sold the movies from its Web site to customers across the country, including Tampa.

The movies were shipped by Little from his California company to the California-based distributor via private shipping company UPS.

Little, his attorneys argued, had no idea who was buying the DVDs, where the customers lived or what method the distributor was using to send the DVDs there.

Jaded Video and its owner are not charged.

Federal prosecutors said Little often addresses his "fans" during the movies, which suggests he knew the movies would be disseminated widely. Little also had language at the end of the movies that directed viewers to his Web site if they wanted to buy a copy. For the purposes of DVD sales, Little's Web site links to Jaded Video.

Bucklew said she will rule on the defense's request to drop charges Tuesday morning.

If Little is convicted, each charge includes a maximum punishment of five years' imprisonment.

AdultFYI

I'd hate to think what would happen if the feds found a girl that had the opposite to say about Max. On a different note, can you imagine what's gonna happen when her kid stumbles across mommy's 'career highlights' in a few years?

Well, now, that's the thing: If they could find one, wouldn't they have put her on the stand? They didn't, and they've rested their case.

ooh yeah that will help max's case. some loopy porn whore who might show up, might not and if she does, i'm sure she'll sound really intelligent.

Here a shot from the Brazil shoot! Summer was an awesome "victim!"


Edit-

Is this her myspace?
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=184095246
can someone ask her to join the fun here.

I remember her as a blonde from Spunkmouth.
I'll message her on perhaps joining us.


JimB: Why do you think the prosecution called her?? Are they intentionally undermining their own case??

She testified for the defense:

Motion To Dismiss Under Consideration In Max Hardcore Trial

Judge Will Decide Tomorrow Which Counts Stay And Which Go

TAMPA - The prosecution rested its case in Max Hardcore's federal obscenity trial late this afternoon, and Judge Susan C. Bucklew asked for the defendants' arguments on a "Rule 29 motion," otherwise known as a "motion to dismiss."

It had been a relatively uneventful day up to that point. The defense had played the final unplayed segments of two charged videos, Fists of Fury 4 and Pure Max 19, which finished up shortly after lunch, and the defense was permitted to call one of its witnesses, retired porn star Summer Luv, out of order.

Luv, who now works in the offices of a Las Vegas construction company, testified that she had shot about 15 scenes with Max Hardcore, and that although she had worked for several production companies including Elegant Angel, Metro, Simon Wolf and Red Light District, she enjoyed shooting with Hardcore most because the other companies "didn't care about you."

Luv then took the jury through a typical Max Hardcore shoot, noting that each time, he spent about an hour explaining what would be happening during the upcoming scene and making sure Luv would be okay with the various actions - anal sex, peeing, fisting and vomiting - to which the young starlet replied that she was, because "I'm kind of an extremist," and the action "piqued my interest." She noted that she had helped created the storyline of her humorous scene in Pure Max 19, where she played a Brazilian hooker, and that she was allowed to take breaks whenever she needed them during filming.

She also testified that since there was urination involved, both she and Max had drunk plenty of water two to three hours before the scene was to commence, so that whatever urine came out would be mostly water. She said that she was allowed to use a buttplug to stretch her ass before anal scenes, that the fisting was sometimes faked for stills, and that the sets were cleaned immediately after shooting was completed.

As to why Luv retired from adult, she said, "I grew up, I had a son, so I'm just being a mommy."

Under cross-examination by prosecutor Lisamarie Freitas, Luv testified that Hardcore paid her as much as $1500 for a scene, and in cases where he took her abroad to shoot, she was paid as much as $10,000, although she was sure of the exact figure.

After Luv was dismissed from the stand, the defense resumed its cross-examination of postal inspector Linda Walker who, under questioning by Max World Entertainment attorney Dan Aaronson, once again took the jury through her use of various Max Hardcore Web sites to purchase the five charged videos.

Under Aaronson's questioning, Walker reiterated that once she had decided on the DVDs she wished to purchase, clicking on a particular title would take her to the JadedVideo.com Website, which was where she would give instructions on where the videos were to be sent (Tampa, Fla.), and by what method she would pay (postal money order). She agreed that she knew she was buying the disks from Jaded, and that as far as her investigations had revealed, neither Max Hardcore nor Max World Entertainment (MWE) had had any ownership or control over Jaded Video, nor any input into where the videos which MWE had sold to Jaded would be sent, nor by what carrier they would be sent.

Hardcore's attorney Jamie Benjamin also questioned Walker, eliciting the information that it was another postal inspector based in Washington, D.C. who had directed her to purchase Max Hardcore videos, and that at no point had she ever conducted a survey regarding the community standards of the Tampa area.

It was at that point that the government rested its case, and MWE attorney H. Louis Sirkin took the podium to move that judgments of acquittal be entered for the defendants on all charges.

Sirkin's first argument dealt with Counts 1-5, the obscenity charges against the promotional trailers for the "Euro" versions of Max Extreme 20, Golden Guzzlers 7, Planet Max 16, Fists of Fury 4 and Pure Max 19 found on the maxhardcore.com Website. Since the Miller test for obscenity requires that the charged material be "taken as a whole," Sirkin argued that the jury had not been presented with sufficient information to do that, since only the five charged trailers had been played, and not any of the remainder of the Website, which a previous witness had testified contained at least 950 additional video clips.

Sirkin also attacked the "interstate transportation" portion of the charge, noting that Hardcore had no mens rea - "guilty knowledge" - that the servers upon which the charged Website material was stored were in Tampa, and that the company that hosted Hardcore's sites has multiple server locations worldwide. Moreover, he noted that the government hadn't even produced any evidence that either Hardcore of MWE had created the sites themselves; that it could easily have been an outside agency. He said that Hardcore's only knowledge of the hosting company was the bill MWE paid every month, and that although that bill came from Tampa, that that wasn't necessarily where the servers with his material were located.

More fundamentally, Sirkin asked that Hardcore and MWE be acquitted on all counts because Hardcore's material, rather than appealing to the "prurient interests" of the average person, was intended, rather, to appeal to persons with "atypical sexual proclivities" - those with specialized sexual interests generally of the "dominant/submissive" variety - and that the government had presented no evidence at all regarding that group, much less whether the Hardcore material would appeal to the "prurient interests" of that group. In so arguing, Sirkin was referring to the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Mishkin, where the defendant had been convicted of appealing to the prurient interests of what was then considered a deviant group: Gays.

Finally, regarding the charges of interstate transportation of obscene materials using the U.S. postal service (18 U.S.C. §1461), which included the charge of aiding and abetting such transportation, Sirkin argued that not only did Hardcore and MWE have nothing to do with mailing the charged DVDs to Tampa, by U.S. mail or any other method, but they also did not have the "guilty knowledge" that such mailings would be taking place, nor to which location the videos would be sent. In fact, Sirkin said, since MWE had sent the disks it sold to Jaded Video in Irvine, Calif. by UPS, it had every reason to believe that Jaded Video would fulfill its orders to customers by UPS as well - and that was significant because sending obscene material by "common carrier" is a different charge than 18 U.S.C. §1461, and neither defendant had been charged with that crime.

Sirkin also readopted his previous argument that the charged videos should have been played in their entirety as presented on the DVDs, rather than broken up with the government playing some scenes and not others, but Judge Bucklew quickly rejected that argument.

When it came her turn to argue, Freitas noted that she also would not deal with the concept that the government had not played all of the videos available on the various Max Hardcore Websites, since Judge Bucklew had already rejected that point during pretrial motions.

Instead, Freitas attempted to tie Hardcore to the mailed videos by noting that he had produced all of them, that Max World Entertainment was a corporation wholly owned by Hardcore himself, and that there were numerous indications on the Websites and even in the videos themselves that Hardcore had intended the videos to be sent to others for viewing. She said that the mere fact that Hardcore had sold the DVDs to an "agent" - Jaded Video - and the fact that he had contracted for space on Candid Hosting's servers for his Website material made out the government's case for "aiding and abetting," and that even though Hardcore and MWE didn't personally mail the disks, he should have known that Jaded would send the disks by some carrier, and that Hardcore had neither instructed Jaded not to send the videos to Tampa, nor to refrain from using the U.S. postal service to do so.

When Judge Bucklew asked for Freitas' response to Sirkin's argument that there was no evidence that the material appealed to the prurient interests of an "atypical sexual group," Freitas replied that there was nothing on the Websites that suggested that the material was directed to any such group (although she admitted that the site pissedonpornstars.com might be taken as such); that the sites merely said "adult entertainment" and that the site didn't appear to advertise the videos to any sexually deviant groups.

Sirkin answered Freitas' points by noting that once Hardcore and MWE had sold the DVDs to Jaded Video, they lost all control over what Jaded would do with them, and that Jaded was responsible for filling all of its own orders. He likened Freitas' argument to the situation of someone who bought a container of sour milk attempting to blame the "manufacturer" of the milk for the problem, rather than the grocery store where the milk had been purchased. Sirkin also referred to a recent Fifth Circuit case, U.S. v. McDowell, where the defendant had been acquitted because the government had failed to prove that the defendant had shared any intent to sell illegal material. Sirkin said that the government could make all the inferences it wanted as to what would be done with the DVDs once they were produced, but that it can't make out a charge of interstate transportation unless it could show that Hardcore or MWE knew the disks would be mailed to Tampa - and he also pointed out that the only sale the defendants were involved in was an intrastate sale from MWE in Pasadena to Jaded in Irvine.

Jeffrey Douglas, also representing Max Hardcore, then took the podium to note that while the government was claiming that the Mishkin case doesn't apply to the defendants because nothing on the Website targeted a deviant group, Edward Mishkin himself didn't market his gay material specifically to homosexuals; they knew to buy it because of the nature of the material itself, just as Hardcore's fans know to buy his material because of its dominance/submission themes. However, when Judge Bucklew claimed that there was a difference between gays and the groups Hardcore was apparently targeting, Douglas responded that the government would still have to identify the "deviant group" whose "prurient interests" the Hardcore material was appealing to, and it had not done so.

Douglas also shot down the government's contention that simply because Hardcore had put his (presumably constitutionally protected) material into the "stream of commerce," that that somehow made him responsible for what Jaded Video did with it. Since sexually explicit material is assumed to be legal unless and until a jury rules otherwise, Hardcore's selling and shipping the material to Jaded was a completely legal act - and in response to some laughter from the bench, Douglas went on to note that it didn't matter if the Court didn't like the material that had been presented; that reaction doesn't shift the burden of proving that Hardcore's material was unprotected by the First Amendment from the government to the defendants' having to prove that it is protected. Rather, it was the government's job to show that Hardcore had a "guilty mind" in sending the material to Jaded - something it had failed to do in its case in chief.

Judge Bucklew said that she would take the parties' arguments under advisement, and issue a ruling tomorrow.

AVN

Quote:

---

and in response to some laughter from the bench

---

That's not too good.

Too bad her testimany had nothing whatsoever to do with the charges against Paul Little (why won't avn print his name?). He isn't being charged with creating a bad work environment or even abusing women (that is for another day and another court). He is being accused of producing obscene material - now tell me how her testimony made what the jury had to watch any less obscene? It's a bit like getting the 14-year-old that was pissed on by R Kelly to take the stand and say she loved the taste of his piss and enjoyed his strong flow. Still isn't legal.

I just read that the defense motion to dismiss all charges was shot down. To quote Nelson "HA-HA".

BTW, how many of you defenders of Max would show these vids to your parents, siblings and friends and proclaim your undying support for them? Yep, that's what I thought.

My mom thinks it's all sick, but if it's made by consenting adults, she doesn't think any of it should be banned.

My sister thinks it's all sick and all should be banned.

Max knows his brand of shit is obscene. That's why he produces it.

i'm one of those republican assholes and i happen to love max hardcore and gag factor, charin. in fact, being violently facefucked myself is like one of my favorite ways to spend an evening. the other being watching 'man vs. wild'.

The Government's case that the material in question offends community standards seems to be predicated upon the statement: "Look at what he does to these poor girls." In that regard, a whore who's fine with it is a pretty good counter-argument.

In any event, I get the feeling that this case was doomed from the beginning at the trial level. On appeal, though, he's got many grounds for reversal.

I might sound dumb like a box of rocks as you guys say but how is sending porno to Tampa, Fl. illegal? Aren't there like 100 agents out in Florida? Im confused?

I'm not certain, but I believe most of the porn that's shot in Florida is done in Miami. Most of the agents are there as well. Max's trial is in Tampa, which is part of the Middle District of Florida. Community standards, the Government believes, are a bit different there.

Another thing to note is that the jurors deciding Max's fate may not necessarily be from the City of Tampa or the surrounding county. Some of them might be from the interior, "hick" counties in the district. I'm sure the Government is counting on them to live up to expectations.

that is pretty fucked up, so its allowed in the other 49 states but just not that county or whatever, thats insane and if those are the only charges, I havent read everysingle thing on him cause he's def. not one of my faves, but that should totally be fucking dropped. JMO

As noted above, it depends on "community standards." For example: What you might get away with in say, Atlanta, would likely piss off Boss Hogg in Hazzard County.

The difficulty with obscenity prosecutions is that you can't say what those community standards are until a jury weighs in on the matter. Of course, it's entirely likely that a jury in the same town a year later might have a completely different opinion on the same material.

I think its taxpayers wasted money and if all the consents are in order, who gives a fuck, like this world doesnt have bigger fish to fry.

Quote:

---

I'm not certain, but I believe most of the porn that's shot in Florida is done in Miami.

---

Dino has said Broward & Miami/Dade.

<<clicky for his post on the subject>>

Right. Those are outside the district, IIRC.

This post about sums up my feelings about things.

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy