Ray Guhn Pleads Guilty

[gonzo]

--Pensacola News

Wasn't Ray Guhn's attorney Lawrence Walters just the other day making national news with his comments about a Google defense?

Pensacola, Florida- The final curtain dropped Tuesday on a multimillion-dollar adult entertainment enterprise ­— featuring X-rated movies shot in Pensacola and Pace — as its key players pleaded guilty in court.

Clinton Raymond McCowen, 47, of Navarre, also known as Ray Guhn, pleaded guilty to unlawful financial transactions.

McCowen will be sentenced to from three to five years in state prison.

- Andrew Craft, 40, of Pensacola, and Kevin Patrick Stevens, 38, of Pensacola each pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering. They face two to four years in state prison.

- Thomas Dwyer, 41, pleaded guilty to wholesale promotion of obscene materials.

All four men remain free on bond until their Aug. 11 sentencing hearing before Circuit Judge Ron Swanson. Each defendant left the courthouse without comment.

"Ray Guhn Productions" featured a Web site with more than 5,000 subscribers who could view films featuring group sex and other acts for $30 a month.

The company made $10 million in its five years of operation, prosecutors said.

The films were made at homes throughout Pensacola and Pace; at least five hotels in Pensacola; along Interstate 10 and Interstate 110; in wooded areas and in other public places.

Tuesday's pleas helped attorneys avoid a three-week obscenity trial that was expected to begin Monday with jury selection at the Santa Rosa County Courthouse.

Assistant State Attorney Russ Edgar prosecuted the two-year-old case that began with arrests in summer 2006.

The veteran prosecutor heralded Tuesday's pleas as a major victory against obscenity in the Panhandle and the state of Florida.

"We have this problem statewide. I hope prosecutors will take our lead and enforce our law," he said.

But McCowen's attorney thought otherwise.

Altamonte Springs attorney Lawrence Walters, one of McCowen's three attorneys, is known for representing clients in the adult-entertainment industry. He said that he doesn't expect Tuesday's outcome to result in a rash of charges filed by Florida prosecutors.

"There was no finding of obscenity by a jury," Walters said. "The majority of the state attorneys in this state have come to recognize that the communities don't want publishers sent to jail for sexual expression."

To prove that material is obscene, and not protected by the First Amendment, it has to fall below the community standards. In this case, that standard is defined by the 1st Judicial Circuit of Florida.

Walters planned to present evidence of data from the Google search engine to show jurors that people in the Pensacola area aren't adverse to downloading pornography.

"We believed we could show that Pensacola had a very heavy appetite for sexual expression," Walters said.

McCowen was the owner of the company. Stevens was a producer and Web site technician. Craft was responsible for recruiting models, finding locations for shoots, making the movies and paying the models.

It's estimated that about 100 local men and women participated in the production of the material in question. Many were expected to testify at trial.

Edgar alleged that McCowen and company threw wild sex parties after the shoots and gave pain pills and cocaine to performers.

[RawAlex]

Mofo.

Thomas Dwyer, 41, pleaded guilty to wholesale promotion of obscene materials.

This is the one that concerns me. Walters can tapdance all he likes, but here we are with another "guilty of obscenity" on the books, which I am guessing is making bukkake look like a risky idea.

Anyone want to comment on what material was obscene enough to plead guilty to?

[ali25extreme]

I am having a hard time finding out what was exactly was done wrong..am I missing something?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by ali25extreme

I am having a hard time finding out what was exactly was done wrong..am I missing something?

Maybe there were things that they didnt want exposed in the trial.

[Toby]

Something relevant had to have changed within the last few days. I would agree with Gonzo's assessment, something came to light that they didn't want exposed at trial.

[MRock]

Let me translate the above comments to: charges with longer jail time were looming. "Just cop to this Ray, and you won't have to worry about the other charges," said the man with the badge.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by ali25extreme

I am having a hard time finding out what was exactly was done wrong..am I missing something?

These two threads cover it pretty well
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=47397
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=82506

[DannyCox]

It appears that Walters loves that "Just plead guilty" defense. One of his first Adult Internet cases was with Barbie from blondflasher.com. Her original site was barbieflashes.com and Mattel sent her a cease and desist. She talked to Walters (and paid him a lot of money) who said that Mattel had no real case and wouldn't do anything. Well, she got sued and Walters told her to plead guilty and she had a $5K judgment against her. He didn't even try to develop any sort of defense. She also paid him all sorts of money for that one too!

The thing was it should have been an easy case as she could prove that "Barbie" had been her nickname since she was a child and she always used it. She had no tie-ins to the Barbie doll at all.

[pam]

- Thomas Dwyer, 41, pleaded guilty to wholesale promotion of obscene materials. HOW do you plead guilty to something that hasn't been proven to be illegal?????? WAS the material proven obscene at a trial and I just missed it? Otherwise, I don't see how this is possible.

[RawAlex]

Until sentencing comes down, it is hard to tell what all is here.

[pornlaw]

Im not surprised. Florida isnt exactly the porn friendly state right now. Better to take the deal and get out in a couple then to roll the dice and lose big. I believe he was looking at a relatively long sentence if convicted on all counts.

Cant say I blame Larry, you try to do what is in your clients best interest.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Im not surprised. Florida isnt exactly the porn friendly state right now. Better to take the deal and get out in a couple then to roll the dice and lose big. I believe he was looking at a relatively long sentence if convicted on all counts.

Cant say I blame Larry, you try to do what is in your clients best interest.

It just seems like a rather sudden 180 degree turn. Just a couple of days ago the story in the media was about how they intended to use Google search data for Pensacola to establish what the community standard really was.

Something seems to have come to light that suddenly made a plea more attractive.

[softball]

As you all know, I have always found this case fishy. Including Larry Walter's lack of response to pertinent questions when he was trying to durm up defense funds.

[Hammer]

Allegations included not paying the male performers that appeared in some of the videos which resulted in the pandering charges as well as supposed drug abuse and that guns were seized during the arrests. Andy claimed that the drugs were prescription and that the guns were licensed and owned by Ray Guhn. I've got a feeling that one or more of those charges turned out to be true.

[softball]

Bottom line is they were busted for stuff that happened outside the web site. This was never a threat to production of porn as far as I can see.

[Toby]

It seems that the gov't made a new plea offer that was for significantly less jail time that prior offers.

http://www.avn.com/law/articles/30943.html

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Bottom line is they were busted for stuff that happened outside the web site. This was never a threat to production of porn as far as I can see.

Not correct - if the male performers are not being paid (hypothetical) then you don't have a valid contract for modelling, which turns the event into girls getting paid to fuck guys (aka prostitution). Everyone performing sex acts in a movie needs to be paid due consideration for their performance. That can be a small amount of money or even "copies of completed videos" (work for print style agreement) but there always has to be some form of recompense.

Without that, it is just hiring a hooker - the differences between the two are very small and actually only really confirmed in California.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Not correct - if the male performers are not being paid (hypothetical) then you don't have a valid contract for modelling, which turns the event into girls getting paid to fuck guys (aka prostitution). Everyone performing sex acts in a movie needs to be paid due consideration for their performance. That can be a small amount of money or even "copies of completed videos" (work for print style agreement) but there always has to be some form of recompense.

Without that, it is just hiring a hooker - the differences between the two are very small and actually only really confirmed in California.

i believe you are wrong on this. They had "parties" that had nothing to do with the website where girls were hired to fuck them and their friends. That is why they are going to serve time.
They, including Larry Walters, tried to pitch it to the business as a threat to filming porn. Even this forum had a link to their charity site. I for one, will not pay to defend anyone who breaks the local law to have fun and get laid and then tries to pitch it as a first amendment issue.
John Stagliano has a more worthwhile case as far as I am concerned and he is doing the right thing. Larry Walters is a snake.
These guys are everything that is wrong with porn.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

i believe you are wrong on this. They had "parties" that had nothing to do with the website where girls were hired to fuck them and their friends.

That's what they claimed but that's not necessarily what happened and not what they were charged with. One of their websites featured orgies (sex parties) so the allegation was that they had these sex parties for the purpose of producing content for the site, in which case, all performers should have been paid.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

That's what they claimed but that's not necessarily what happened and not what they were charged with. One of their websites featured orgies (sex parties) so the allegation was that they had these sex parties for the purpose of producing content for the site, in which case, all performers should have been paid.

I think that pretty much sums up what I said. I actually don't care if they shot their private orgies then put them on the net. My opinion still stands and what they did was wrong. This is not a first amendment case. It is a bunch of sleazebags getting laid, perhaps publishing the events, then trying to get us to support them. I am sorry. I work hard. I pay everyone involved with me, as you well know, and I do it right. I do not want to be associated with scumbags who party their faces off, make promises they can't keep and then have the audacity to ask us for money to support them. Not only will I not support this shit, but I will do my best to point out that I am not in that business and it is bad for all of us.

[tony404]

When I asked my lawyer about this when it first happened. He said this isnt about porn its about pissing off the locals. I have a friend who is from Pensacola and says its a pretty uptight place.You have large companies in FL and they have no problems Score and Bang bus come to mind. its got to suck for them big time but if they were earning 10 mil they could of shot anywhere in the world they wanted.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by Hammer

One of their websites featured orgies (sex parties) so the allegation was that they had these sex parties for the purpose of producing content for the site, in which case, all performers should have been paid.

We used to hold huge orgy parties at our studios that we would film and also stream live on the 'net from different angles. The largest had 57 men and 11 women, and everyone was paid. The guys were all paid a token $20. and of course, had to supply proper ID which we photocopied and had to sign a release. Every large sex party we've ever done was run like that.

Too many guys in this industry think only with their cocks, and that's what gets them in trouble.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

Too many guys in this industry think only with their cocks, and that's what gets them in trouble.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I think that pretty much sums up what I said. I actually don't care if they shot their private orgies then put them on the net. My opinion still stands and what they did was wrong. This is not a first amendment case. It is a bunch of sleazebags getting laid, perhaps publishing the events, then trying to get us to support them. I am sorry. I work hard. I pay everyone involved with me, as you well know, and I do it right. I do not want to be associated with scumbags who party their faces off, make promises they can't keep and then have the audacity to ask us for money to support them. Not only will I not support this shit, but I will do my best to point out that I am not in that business and it is bad for all of us.

I don't disagree with you with you and I think people like this are bad for the business too but that's not what you said. lol

You said "i believe you are wrong on this. They had "parties" that had nothing to do with the website where girls were hired to fuck them and their friends."

And I said, no, the parties did have to do with the website and they were held to produce content for the website not just so they and their friends could get fucked.

[D-man]

There are a bunch of stories re this case.

"Guhn and fellow defendants Andrew Craft, Kevin Patrick Stevens and Thomas Dwyer pleaded guilty to various charges Tuesday.

Guhn, 47, whose real name is Clinton Raymond McCowen, was scheduled to go on trial July 1 on charges of obscenity, racketeering and money laundering, and faced up to 90 years in prison. By pleading guilty to the money-laundering charges, he avoids trial and faces three to five years in state prison.

Craft, 40, and Stevens, 38, each pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering and face two to four years in state prison. Dwyer, 41, pleaded guilty to wholesale promotion of obscene materials."

I see "charges of obscenity, racketeering and money laundering, and faced up to 90 years"

Guhn, pleading guilty to the money-laundering charges.

Craft, 40, and Stevens, 38, each pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering.

Dwyer, 41, pleaded guilty to wholesale promotion of obscene materials.

I'm thinking "racketeering and money laundering" there is more to this case then whats being posted! I do agree taking another obscenity conviction is not good!

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I don't disagree with you with you and I think people like this are bad for the business too but that's not what you said. lol

You said "i believe you are wrong on this. They had "parties" that had nothing to do with the website where girls were hired to fuck them and their friends."

And I said, no, the parties did have to do with the website and they were held to produce content for the website not just so they and their friends could get fucked.

Well we are agreeing on most of this. But what I heard was that the parties were just parties. So, it had nothing to do with filming and first amendment.

[MikeSouth]

Ray Guhn My Thoughts:
By MikeSouth

In the end the case wasn’t the precedent setting case it had the potential to be. It would have determined if shooting porn in Florida were legal or not and probably the entire 11th Circuit of which I am a part.

Ray was charged with Prostitution, Money Laundering and Drug related charges. This is more than enough to invoke the RICO statutes.

The prostitution charges stemmed from the fact that the prosecution was claiming that paying people to have sex is prostitution no matter who pays. The same reasoning used in the historic Hal Freeman case., where the 9th circuit courts ruled that paying people to make adult videos is NOT prostitution. This would have been the first time the theory has been tested outside the ninth circuit.

Bear in mind that Ray himself is a lawyer.

What likely happened is that Ray was offered a sweetheart deal on one charge, where he gets a low sentence of 3 to 5 years in a state prison. Rather than risk a trial where he gets convicted on any two of the three charges where he would face RICO sentencing and 15 -25 yrs he copped a plea.

Was it a smart move? I expect it was, there was a lot more at stake here than just making porn for Guhn. There was reportedly to be testimony that Guhn supplied drugs to the girls and that there were pay for play sessions AFTER the shoots were over. This kind of thing muddies the water a LOT.

In the end it really didn’t have the precedent setting possibilities because of the alleged criminal activity that surrounded the shoots that was unrelated to porn.

Word is that the real reason Ray got popped is because one of his inside guys turned on him.

[pornlaw]

The only state where porn production is protected is California. Everywhere else it can and in some states, will be considered prostitution no matter whether there's a camera there or not.

Florida actually has a statute that allows a prostitute to sue her pimp in civil court for profits and it actually indicates that the production of porn is covered by that statute. Bang Bros or anyone else isnt safe from that statute.

Actually Mike just to be clear, Freeman is a California Supreme Court case, not a Ninth Circuit case. Cert was denied by the US Supreme Court. It only applies to California not all of the Ninth Circuit.

[MikeSouth]

Thanks for that correction i thought the California court agreed with the ruling and the 9th circuit struck it down. My bad the CA court of appeals ruled against freeman but the supreme court of CA struck it down and that actually makes a big difference because it was a state law that was struck down in the state. The federal courts had nothing to do with it, except that the supreme court refused to hear the case, Justice OConner saw it as a valid ruling by the CA supreme court.

Still the point remains that by and large this wasn't so much about shooting porn as it was about the ancillary activities.

My argument as to why Ray took the plea still holds

[softball]

Does any of this come as a shock? There are cases to go to the mats over and this was never one of them. The production of pornography was always just an arrow in the prosecution's quiver and Larry Walters was never straight with his arguments.
Even Max Hardcore was a more legit porn based argument even though I never agreed with his m.o.