Is 'Hardcore Sex' Coupled With 'Violence' Illegal???

[Dr Don]

There were a number of other producers in Canada, including Ontario, at that time, which made my prosecution all the more absurd.

[smudger]

Silence in Court please whilst Judge Smudge delivers his verdict.
In the case of Dr Don v Paul (KHP).

The issue between the parties is whether or not the First Party involved a 14 year old minor in the administration of his website, or allowed him to view the posted material.
The wood has kinda disappeared owing to the number of trees blocking the view.
So we need to get down to basics.

1. It is common ground between the parties that Police received an allegation that the First Party was using a minor to assist with his allegedly pornographic website.
2. The First Party says that this was never true and upon further investigation the allegation was found to be without foundation and was maliciously made.
3. The Second Party's position on this is that (although he does not know of his own knowledge whether the allegation was true or not), the First Party has produced no evidence to prove that it was untrue, leaving open the possibility that it was indeed true.

Clearly, if this allegation had been true, it would have formed an important plank in the prosecution's case. I do not agree with the statements of either the Second Party or the Hon. Dalila Di Capri, who suggest that the evidence was not used because it was not relevant. In the case of Lady Di Capri, she states that it would not be relevant, because he had not been exposed to pornographic material -"because erotic horror is not porn". Whilst agreeing with the latter part of her statement I have to suggest her Ladyship has failed to take into account the following:

It was the position of the Prosecution that the material being produced by the First Party WAS pornographic.

Therefore, it would have been very proper for the Prosecution to have led evidence suggesting that the First Party had involved a minor in his enterprise, since this would have greatly strengthened their case; alternatively, would have founded further charges of corrupting the morals of a minor. It is clear from the animus with which the prosecution was driven, that no evidence useful to them would have been left lying on the file.

Given also the plain animus of the Police, it must follow that when they received the allegation regarding the minor, they would undoubtedly have followed it up. It certainly triggered the search of the First Party's home, which eventually led to the charges being brought.

It is inconceivable that they would not have interviewed the boy in question; equally inconceivable, that they would not have taken a statement from him with the view of calling him as a witness, if their interview had produced any credible evidence to support that initial allegation.

However, the position is that this allegation was not put forward in the subsequent trial, nor the originators of it called to give evidence. This aspect was not explored by the prosecution.

I do not have evidence before me as to whether the police ever took a statement from the juvenile concerned. If they did, it would have been passed to the Prosecutor who must have decided the witness would be incapable of belief. If they did not, then they must have formed the opinion that the allegations had no substance to them.

After all, there were only two possibilities. Either the boy had been involved with the First Party, or he had not been. If the former, it would have been of great interest to the Police. Therefore, I am compelled to conclude that the latter is the truth and that inevitably renders the allegation malicious.

The nature of what happened means that the Second Party's request for objective proof of the situation cannot ever be met, since no proof exists which is accessible to the First Party. Anything on the issue would have stayed within Police files.

It is ludicrous to imagine that the Police would have written to the First Party advising him that the allegations made by his neighbours were false. They simply dropped it as a line of enquiry since it was not essential to the main case.

I therefore conclude that all of the known circumstances of this case lead to the inescapable conclusion that there was never any truth whatever in the suggestion that the First Party involved any minor, in any way, with his work. Equally I find no evidence that the Second Party originated the allegation but believe he was merely repeating what he saw to be a legitimate concern

If I have misdirected myself as to any issue of fact, then the Parties are given leave to appeal to His Lordship the Right Honourable Blue.

SMUDGE J

[Bluestone]

Applications for leave to appeal Smudge J.'s decision in this matter may be filed on this thread; however, the Bluestone Court of Appeal must remind all litigants that there is no right to appeal in this matter. Leave must be shown and satisfactorily demonstrated before the Bluestone Appeals Court will even consider re-opening this matter. It appears that the judge of first instance has made a fair and equitable determination of the issues involved in this case, and that his decision should not be tampered with unless sufficent cause is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has spent more than enough time on this matter already.

Chief Justice Bluestone
Bluestone Court of Justice, Appeals Division

[Bluestone]

Thank you, Paul. Case closed.

The main topic can now resume.

Chief Justice Blue

(P.S. Paul, your fans are indeed eagerly awaiting more of your outstanding videos. Another good reason to bring this secondary discussion to a close.)

[Bluestone]

There were a number of other producers in Canada, including Ontario, at that time, which made my prosecution all the more absurd.

Are any of these Ontario producers still producing? If so, it looks like they were convinced that erotic death fetish videos are NOT illegal, either in Canada or the States.

Blue

[Dalila di Capri]

To Smudger: Humoursly stated.

And I accept your point.

If the prosecution had been able to to prove that a child had been exposed to it they would have used it vigorously in the case against Don.

Blue it is very noble of you to compliment Paul and allow him the dignity of getting back to producing erotic horror. That is his true calling. It is clear to me from his decision to "laugh at the rest of us" that his debating skills are not as polished as his FX work.

An apology for upsetting this fourm would have been the more manly gesture, but I can accept him taking his marbles and going home as the next best thing.

At least the pointless war is now at an end.

I too have films to make this evening, but allow me to say this:

Our genre must progress beyond its current state if it is going to survive.

I am open to anyone who makes positive suggestions to that effect.

Baci

[Dr Don]

Lord Smudger, I could have filled in more details for you prior to your Lordship's verdict. But it would have only given more evidence to support the conclusions you came to. It would not have altered anything in a meaningful way. So I accept your Lordship's verdict.


Hmmmm? Am I dreaming. (DrDon gives himself a bitch slap and wants to read it a second time).

Hang on.

[Dr Don]

Lord Smudger: I numbered your paragraphs for easier reference.

Regarding your last conclusion in paragraph 14:

I don't believe the concern of the second party was legitimate. In light of your other rulings, the concern of the second party is illogical and makes no sense. The manner in which such concern was expressed by the second party was, by design, to defame the first party. It was indeed a malicious use of old dead allegations for a self serving purpose and to cast suspicion on my character.

In relation to the rest of your Lordship's brilliant decision, I must concur.

Therefore my appeal would be for a re-render of paragraph 14 to include my concerns as stated above.

Silence in Court please whilst Judge Smudge delivers his verdict.
In the case of Dr Don v Paul (KHP).

The issue between the parties is whether or not the First Party involved a 14 year old minor in the administration of his website, or allowed him to view the posted material.
The wood has kinda disappeared owing to the number of trees blocking the view.
So we need to get down to basics.

1. It is common ground between the parties that Police received an allegation that the First Party was using a minor to assist with his allegedly pornographic website.
2. The First Party says that this was never true and upon further investigation the allegation was found to be without foundation and was maliciously made.
3. The Second Party's position on this is that (although he does not know of his own knowledge whether the allegation was true or not), the First Party has produced no evidence to prove that it was untrue, leaving open the possibility that it was indeed true.

4. Clearly, if this allegation had been true, it would have formed an important plank in the prosecution's case. I do not agree with the statements of either the Second Party or the Hon. Dalila Di Capri, who suggest that the evidence was not used because it was not relevant. In the case of Lady Di Capri, she states that it would not be relevant, because he had not been exposed to pornographic material -"because erotic horror is not porn". Whilst agreeing with the latter part of her statement I have to suggest her Ladyship has failed to take into account the following:

5. It was the position of the Prosecution that the material being produced by the First Party WAS pornographic.

6. Therefore, it would have been very proper for the Prosecution to have led evidence suggesting that the First Party had involved a minor in his enterprise, since this would have greatly strengthened their case; alternatively, would have founded further charges of corrupting the morals of a minor. It is clear from the animus with which the prosecution was driven, that no evidence useful to them would have been left lying on the file.

7. Given also the plain animus of the Police, it must follow that when they received the allegation regarding the minor, they would undoubtedly have followed it up. It certainly triggered the search of the First Party's home, which eventually led to the charges being brought.

8. It is inconceivable that they would not have interviewed the boy in question; equally inconceivable, that they would not have taken a statement from him with the view of calling him as a witness, if their interview had produced any credible evidence to support that initial allegation.

9. However, the position is that this allegation was not put forward in the subsequent trial, nor the originators of it called to give evidence. This aspect was not explored by the prosecution.

10. I do not have evidence before me as to whether the police ever took a statement from the juvenile concerned. If they did, it would have been passed to the Prosecutor who must have decided the witness would be incapable of belief. If they did not, then they must have formed the opinion that the allegations had no substance to them.

11. After all, there were only two possibilities. Either the boy had been involved with the First Party, or he had not been. If the former, it would have been of great interest to the Police. Therefore, I am compelled to conclude that the latter is the truth and that inevitably renders the allegation malicious.

12. The nature of what happened means that the Second Party's request for objective proof of the situation cannot ever be met, since no proof exists which is accessible to the First Party. Anything on the issue would have stayed within Police files.

13. It is ludicrous to imagine that the Police would have written to the First Party advising him that the allegations made by his neighbours were false. They simply dropped it as a line of enquiry since it was not essential to the main case.

14. I therefore conclude that all of the known circumstances of this case lead to the inescapable conclusion that there was never any truth whatever in the suggestion that the First Party involved any minor, in any way, with his work. Equally I find no evidence that the Second Party originated the allegation but believe he was merely repeating what he saw to be a legitimate concern

15. If I have misdirected myself as to any issue of fact, then the Parties are given leave to appeal to His Lordship the Right Honourable Blue.

SMUDGE J

[Dr Don]

I have one other request for Lord Blue, besides my request for you to grant Lord Smudger consent to re-render his decision at para 14 as requested by me;

I would like Lord Smudger's decison posted as a seperate topic with it's own heading for the sake of the prominence his fair and just verdict deserves.

Thank you in advance.
Your Humble Servant
DrDon

[Bluestone]

Dr. Don,

As you know, having rendered his verdict, His Honour Judge Smudger is functus, meaning that he no longer has jurisdiction to deal with this matter and cannot change his decision. That is a matter of well-settled jurisprudence.

In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support leave to appeal Judge Smudger's decision in part, I have determined that there is a dirth of evidence led by the Party of the First Part on the issue of the motivations of the Party of the Second Part. There is absolutely no evidence of malice on the part of the Second Party. He was obviously repeating allegations that were set out in the brief of Counsel Jafa, and, with respect, the Second Party was unshakeable on cross-examination. This Court is not psychic. We cannot profess to know what was in the mind of the Party of the Second Part when these known allegations were referred to. Accordingly, we must rule against your request for leave to appeal this portion of Judge Smudger's decision.

We do however wish you all the best with your appeal against the unjust prosecution of you in the main action. Give 'em hell, Doctor.

Case closed!

His Lordship, Blue, J.

(P.S. Don, you earlier stated that this was not a court of law, simply a message board. That is a statement that you could be held in contempt for, but I choose not to cite you for this outrageous claim... basically, because IT IS JUST A MESSAGE BOARD!!!!! )

[Dr Don]

A trial by ambush no less. I had been going back to 2008 in your forum gathering my evidence of malice whilst thou was conducting this hearing behind thy back.

I shall accept your verdict.

However, I place myself in contempt of court with the following images:

[Dr Don]

There were a number of other producers in Canada, including Ontario, at that time, which made my prosecution all the more absurd.

Are any of these Ontario producers still producing? If so, it looks like they were convinced that erotic death fetish videos are NOT illegal, either in Canada or the States.

Blue

As I was also convinced in 1998 after reading the Bulter decision. It did not do any good. Being convinced is not enough. What this community needs is a lawyer with the balls to provide a legal written opinion as to what is obscene. Then you can post the opinion in plain view and rely on it, and if you are charged while adhering to it, you can sue the lawyer and create a very big shit storm.

[smudger]

A good idea.

But, seeing as how uncertain it all is, where are you going to find a lawyer who will have the balls to put his ass on the line?

You will get an opinion along the lines of "Yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but, no, but..."
(U.K. TV viewers will recognise that one!)

[Dr Don]

Smudger: I believe when my case is done and over there will be a proper legal opinion that will either confirm the one written by Justice Sopinka in 1992, or a new definition that will bring an end to the Crown playing dumb about what constitutes explicit sex.

[Dr Don]

It's your point that doesn't add up Mr.KHP.

As far as you worrying, you don't produce hardcore sex and violence so you don't have to worry.