Imagepost Xxx

Imagepost Xxx
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

The lawsuit claims the "porn scheme" was hatched by actor Ruben “Andre” Garcia (left), co-owner and videographer Matthew Wolfe (middle), and owner Michael Pratt (right).
Craigslist ads linked back to modeling websites like ModelingGigs[dot]com. According to the lawsuit, the owners of Girls Do Porn's website own these sites as well.

Copyright © 2022 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved

Follow Us

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

A woman testified in court on Wednesday to an elaborate scheme hatched by three men who operate a San Diego-based pornography website to get her and 21 other women into appearing in a sex video.
The woman, known only as Jane Doe 15, is the first plaintiff to testify in the civil trial against popular adult website, Girls Do Porn, its owner Michael Pratt, videographer Matthew Wolfe, and actor and director Ruben Andre Garcia.
During her testimony, the woman described what her attorneys call an “elaborate scheme” to convince her and hundreds of other women to appear in sex videos which were later posted to some of the most popular websites in the world.
Jane Doe 15 said she was 18-years-old and attending college in 2016 when she found an ad on Craigslist for a modeling gig. She had been on the job hunt in order to help pay for tuition, room and board when she found the ad posted on her city’s Craigslist page. The ad directed her to a website owned by Pratt. She said she filled out the online form and attached pictures of herself.
“I had been applying to a lot of jobs and not having heard back, I was very intrigued to get $300 to do clothed modeling,” testified the woman. “I could have used the money.”
After completing the online form, Jane Doe 15 said she received an email from a man identifying himself as “Johnathon.”
Johnathon, who attorneys for the plaintiffs say is the alias for owner Pratt, gave her an offer she wasn’t expecting: Get paid $5,000 to have sex on camera.
The woman said she did not respond to the email. Court exhibits shown at the trial show the man then known as Johnathon followed up with another email. That was when Jane Doe 15 said the scheme began to unfold.
“He kept insisting I hear him out on the other offer,” she testified in court. “He said it would be thirty minutes of having sex, it would be $5000…he repeatedly said not online, not online, he said the videos would be on DVDs in Australia and other countries. I asked if I could do other modeling and he said no.”
She said she again did not respond. But, Pratt persisted, she said, continuing to tell her that the videos would be sold to private collectors in Australia or New Zealand and would not be released online.
“I wasn’t interested in doing porn. I knew how being in a porn could affect your future, your job opportunities, and how people believe you,” she said. “But he kept saying that no one would ever find out it wouldn’t go online.”
The woman said Pratt told her that he could provide a list of 200 women who would vouch for the company and ease any of her concerns about the distribution of the videos.
“He was very insistent that I hear the offer. Five positions, five to seven minutes each, it wouldn’t be in the U.S., it wouldn’t be online, it would be on DVD in other countries, and there were hundreds of girls who did not have any problems.”
She then spoke to two reference women, who assured her that everything Pratt had promised was true.
“It helped to know that girls do regular modeling and go to school, they were regular girls just like me.”
During the hour-long phone call, she said he insisted on booking her flight to San Diego.
“He said let’s book it just in case, we can always change it.”
Added Jane Doe 15, “I still wasn’t fully convinced yet.”
Soon after she got a text from two reference women, Amberlyn Carter and Kailyn Wright.
To see some of the text messages sent by the alleged “reference women,” scroll through below or click here .
“It was comforting to know I could talk to a woman who had done this before.”
Wright told her that she had done two shoots, and no one ever found out.
“It was encouraging to know that another cheerleader had done it,” said Jane Doe 15. “She had done two shoots and no one had discovered her.”
Again Jane Doe 15 said she asked, “These aren’t distributed in America right?”
Wright responded, “no prob and no they aren’t.”
Wright said there was no way anyone would find out.
“It got me a step closer and resolved all of my worries. I was assured it was safe by Wright and Johnathon and they had said no names, no internet, just DVDs in Australia.”
Jane Doe 15 agreed to come to San Diego the following week.
After arriving, she testified that she asked the videographer, the make-up artist, as well as the actor, Andre Garcia, that the videos would never be published online.
She said each had the same answer: No.
Minutes before the shoot, Jane Doe 15 said she had been given marijuana and then handed a stack of papers which she later learned was the contract. The videographer gave her the pages, “He just flips through them; this says these won’t go on the internet, only on DVD to Australia, and this one says no name would be used, and then he gave them to me and I couldn’t understand what he handed me so I just signed it.”
After the filming, she said she was paid $2,000 less because she had bruises and pale skin.
She left shortly after but not before taking screenshots of all of the text messages she exchanged with the man she knew as “Johnathon.”
“I feel humiliated.,” she said crying. “I’ve gotten random texts from strangers. It made me feel kind of unsafe that a stranger would find me like that. It made me feel unsafe and violated.”
Jane Doe 15 will take the stand again Thursday, August 22, for cross-examination. Also testifying will be the woman known as Jane Doe 12.
In a new podcast from NBC 7 Investigates called INSIGHT, journalists Dorian Hargrove and Tom Jones share some of the women’s stories who were featured in these videos and what they uncovered about the Girls Do Porn website, including the company’s ties to shell companies that were charged with laundering billions of dollars for a Mexican drug cartel and trafficking illegal weapons.
To listen to that podcast, click here or hit ‘Play’ below.

Sign up to comment and more
Sign up

Anca Gabriela Rafan / EyeEm / Getty

Share this story

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit

What's so hard about just not doing something you'd be ashamed of being known for doing?

simplepurple
Smack-Fu Master, in training

I see way too much blaming of the victims in these comments, and make no mistake - these women _are_ victims. I hope the people who are blaming these women can take a step back and realize that we're all vulnerable in one way or another and that we can all get hurt. It's just part of being human, and we need to try to have some sympathy for, and empathy with, those who are conned and lied to.

Under contract law, a plaintiff can recover compensatory damages against a defendant when a court finds that the defendant has committed fraudulent misrepresentation. Courts will typically find that a defendant has committed fraudulent misrepresentation when six factors have been met: 1. a representation was made 2. the representation was false 3. that when made, the defendant knew that the representation was false or that the defendant made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth 4. that the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it 5. that the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation 6. that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation

Share this story

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy is a senior reporter covering tech policy and the future of transportation. He lives in Washington DC.

Email timothy.lee@arstechnica.com
//
Twitter @binarybits

Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Sign up or login to join the discussions!

Timothy B. Lee
- 8/31/2019, 2:30 PM

Almost two dozen women say they were tricked into appearing in pornographic videos on the prominent porn site GirlsDoPorn. They sued the owner of the site, Michael Pratt, for fraud in 2016. The trial began in mid-August and is expected to run for more than a month.
One of the victims wrapped up her testimony in a San Diego courtroom on Monday.
“If I had known that they were posting it on the Internet, that my name would be attached to it, that it would be in the United States," the woman identified as Jane Doe 15 said in court, according to the Daily Beast . "If I had known that it was more than 30 minutes of filming, if I had known any of that, just any one of those, I wouldn't have done it.”
The victims of the alleged scheme were young women aged 18 to 23 who initially responded to online ads for clothed modeling gigs. But no such opportunities materialized. Instead, they were contacted by men who encouraged them to appear in a pornographic video.
Most of the women were reluctant, but they were offered as much as $5,000 for 30 minutes on camera—an offer that some women found hard to refuse. Women say they were told that the videos would only be distributed on DVDs outside the United States.
The plaintiffs say that this was all lies. The men planned to post the videos directly to the GirlsDoPorn website—as well as uploading shorter clips to free porn sites like PornHub and YouPorn. After they had traveled to San Diego, the women say they were pressured to sign lengthy contracts before they had time to read them carefully. Women were told they would receive less than the agreed-upon price—in one case, $3,000 rather than $5,000—because the men were "disappointed" with their appearance.
To assuage their fears, prospective women were connected with other women to serve as references and reassure them that the videos wouldn't appear online. Some had shot their own videos so recently that they hadn't yet been posted online. But others were women who had never shot their own videos, but they were instead paid to say otherwise.
In a court declaration , one of the women said that Andre Garcia—the male talent in a number of the videos and a central figure in Pratt's operation—"coached me on how to correspond with the prospective women to gain their trust, even if that included telling lies and hiding information."
She said Garcia encouraged her to "tell the prospective women that I too had previously filmed a video for them, even though I had never done so." She was also coached "to tell the women that I come from a small town, shot a video for them, that no one has found out, and that the women had nothing to worry about, and to tell prospective women the videos they filmed would never be released in the United States or on the Internet."
She said she was paid $50 to $200 for each call she took from women, depending on the attractiveness and age of the women.
The women's videos generally appeared on the GirlsDoPorn site under a pseudonym, but this provided little protection. Inevitably, someone who knew the woman would notice the video and share it. It then circulated rapidly among the woman's real-life friends and acquaintances.
After this happened to Jane Doe 15, she texted a woman who had helped convince her to do the video.
“Hey, you lied to me, and they lied to me,” she wrote in a text message. “It’s on a website now and my whole town back home knows. This ruined my life.”
This didn't just lead to embarrassment with friends and family—it could also lead to harassment by strangers, the plaintiffs point out.
"Since being launched in 2009, GirlsDoPorn has grown in popularity and generated a cult-like following of hobbyists/stalkers who obsess over the amateur women featured in the videos," the plaintiffs wrote in a legal filing. "Dozens of websites, forums, and message boards exist dedicated solely to publishing victims' real names, hometowns, social media accounts, photographs, and other personal information."
Indeed, the plaintiffs say Pratt and his associates directly contributed to this stalker-like behavior. In July 2015, personal information about numerous GirlsDoPorn victims was published on a website called pornwikileaks.com, a site that specializes in publishing personal information about pornographic actresses.
Later the same year, the plaintiffs say, "administrative control of pornwikileaks.com was transferred to a person using the email address mike@bll-media.com—a known email used by Pratt." Afterwards, "none of the information regarding defendants' victims was taken down, and in January 2016, advertisements for GirlsDoPorn with hyperlinks began appearing in posts on PornWikileaks.com." According to the lawsuit, personal information about women appearing in GirlsDoPorn videos was only removed in mid-2016—after women filed their lawsuit.
On Thursday, porn site Bang Bros purchased control of PornWikileaks and shut it down —promising that it would never again host personal information about porn actresses. It's not clear who Bang Bros paid for the domain or how much money changed hands.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say they have personally talked to well over 100 women who have complaints similar to the 22 women who filed lawsuits. However, they say many other women are afraid that defendants will do everything they can to embarrass women who come forward—asking intrusive questions about their personal lives, seeking to strip them of anonymity, and even seeking permission to show the women's pornographic videos in open court. This week, a judge rejected a request by defendants to play one of the women's GirlsDoPorn videos during the trial.
Join the Ars Orbital Transmission mailing list to get weekly updates delivered to your inbox.

CNMN Collection
WIRED Media Group
© 2022 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 1/1/20) and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement (updated 1/1/20) and Ars Technica Addendum (effective 8/21/2018). Ars may earn compensation on sales from links on this site. Read our affiliate link policy .
Your California Privacy Rights | Do Not Sell My Personal Information
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.
Ad Choices

Sign up to comment and more
Sign up

Share this story

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit

Timothy B. Lee
Senior tech policy reporter

I've updated the story, added a second section with details from the indictment.

Share this story

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy is a senior reporter covering tech policy and the future of transportation. He lives in Washington DC.

Email timothy.lee@arstechnica.com
//
Twitter @binarybits

Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Please tell us why you hid this ad?
Sign up or login to join the discussions!

Timothy B. Lee
- 10/11/2019, 4:51 AM

Federal prosecutors have charged three men and a woman with sex trafficking charges for operating the popular porn site GirlsDoPorn. At least 22 women featured on the site have sued the site's owners , charging that the pornographers used lies and coercion to gain their participation.
The 22 women said they responded to ads for clothed modeling gigs. When they were asked to shoot porn instead, they initially resisted. But they went along with it after the company assured them that their videos would only be sold on DVD to customers outside the United States and would not be posted online. That turned out to be a lie, as their videos wound up on GirlsDoPorn, a website with plenty of American viewers.
"I was in a state of panic when I first found out," one of the alleged victims testified in court. "I couldn't believe it. I still can't believe it."
"I kept asking if it would be shared with anyone here and they said 'No, it would be in Australia only,'" she said.
One of the site's owners, 36-year-old Michael Pratt, fled the United States last month. Co-owner Matthew Wolfe, 37, was arrested on Tuesday. Ruben Garcia, 31, the male performer in many of the site's videos, was arrested on Wednesday.
The only woman defendant, 37-year-old Valorie Moser, was an administrative assistant for the porn company for more than three years. She recently testified in civil court about her involvement in the company—perhaps unaware that she was about to be criminally indicted. She described picking up women from the airport, taking nude photos of them, and managing many of the financial and logistical details of the shooting process.
The Daily Beast reports that "girls begged Moser to remove their videos, offering to return their earnings, or pay extra. For the first year at Girls Do Porn, Moser would forward these messages to Pratt. He often told her to block their numbers. She did."
Prosecutors say that the defendants reaped more than $17 million in revenue from the site—much of it obtained under false pretenses. In their lawsuit, the 22 women are seeking $1 million each. The civil trial is expected to wrap up later this month. The criminal trial likely won't get started for months.
"Some of the women were pressured into signing documents without reviewing them and then threatened with legal action or outing if they failed to perform," prosecutors allege. "Some were not permitted to leave the shooting locations until the videos were made. Some were forced to perform certain sex acts they had declined to do, or they would not be paid or allowed to leave."
Prosecutors say the charges carry a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Courthouse News reporter Bianca Bruno posted a copy of the criminal indictment in the case. It accuses Garcia, the male performer in many of the videos, of raping two of the women.
After one woman flew to San Diego, Garcia allegedly picked her up and took her to a hotel room. There he "began groping" her and forced her to kiss him. Garcia then allegedly said "I need to take you for a test drive before tomorrow," pushed her down onto her back, and raped her.
The next day, she was allegedly rushed through signing a contract. She had sex with Garcia, which "was frequently painful because he was aggressive and indifferent." According to the indictment, she woman remembers being told "stop being a whiny little bitch" when she asked to take breaks due to the pain.
After the video appeared online, the woman's parents kicked her out of the house, "told her not to come back and disowned her."
A s
Cameltoe Pants Pics
Hot Cock In Ass
Tiny Mexican Nude

Imagepost Xxx

Report Page