Ready for the question? "What were you thinking?"
Porn-star sheriffs fight video
Officers go to court to get sex tape suppressed, but filmmaker objects
By: Mike McIntyre
May 16, 2
009
Officers go to court to get sex tape suppressed, but filmmaker objects
By: Mike McIntyre
May 16, 2
009WINNIPEG — It's shaping up to be one of the most anticipated civil court trials in recent Manitoba memory. And it may have to come with a "parental advisory" warning.
In one corner is an amateur Winnipeg porn star and her videographer husband, wrapping themselves in the "freedom of expression" flag and insisting they've done nothing illegal by cruising local bars looking for subjects to star in their latest fleshy flick.
In the other corner are two well-respected provincial sheriff's officers who say they've been humiliated and ridiculed by inmates and co-workers after a naughty video of a drunken off-duty tryst surfaced on the Internet.
The Winnipeg Free Press has uncovered extensive new details about the unusual case as it heads toward a date with a judge later this year. Both parties have clearly laid out their positions in affidavits that have been filed with the Court of Queen's Bench.
The male and female sheriff's officers, who have been living common-law for several years, were suspended without pay in December 2006 after justice officials learned of a racy online video that showed them in consensual sex acts with a woman named Oshean de St. Claire de Guise.
Oshean's website revealed an explicit, 45-second clip of the video and encouraged visitors to purchase a membership to see the entire 40-minute romp. The website contained several other videos and promises: "No paid actors and no script... this is REAL reality porn."
The couple got their jobs back in early 2007 and also filed a lawsuit, claiming they didn't knowingly consent to having the video become public. They met Oshean and her husband, Johannes, in a Winnipeg bar during Grey Cup week in November 2006 and say they agreed to be filmed "privately" for their own viewing pleasure.
Lawyers representing Oshean and Johannes fired back, saying the sheriffs knew exactly what they were getting into and don't have a legal leg to stand on in trying to quash the video they have dubbed The Grey Cup Blonde.
"They were thrilled with the film and the fact it could be viewed on our website," lawyer David Guttman wrote in a recently amended statement of defence. They have also produced signed consent forms in which the sheriffs agreed to "participate in adult photo/video production for commercial purposes."
"There are significant public interests in copyright and free and uncensored circulation of information to the Internet," Guttman wrote in outlining one of the key issues for trial. "When a production is filmed, edited and prepared for release, with the consent of the performers, does copyright not belong to the filmmaker or producer? The principles of freedom of expression must be safeguarded."
A judge ordered a temporary injunction in April 2007 that ordered Oshean to remove the specific video from her website. He refused to shut down the entire site, as the sheriffs had requested.
However, the saucy video remains in legal limbo and can be reposted and distributed for sale if Oshean and her husband get a favourable ruling at trial -- and Guttman predicts the added publicity will actually backfire on the sheriff's officers by resulting in even greater exposure for his clients and their product.
Both sheriffs say their lives have been forever affected by their involvement in the videotaped encounter. They claim Oshean and Johannes plied them with alcohol, which likely contributed to them not understanding the apparent terms of the consent forms they signed.
"I've suffered great anxiety, stress and humiliation," the female said in a recent affidavit. "The thought that members of the public at large can download these images at any time makes me physically ill."
She said they have been subjected to taunting by inmates and "treated with derision" by co-workers.
"The damage to my reputation and my dignity has been, and continues to be, enormous," she wrote.
Oshean and Johannes claim the sheriff's officers initiated the sexual acts that night by asking numerous questions about the adult entertainment business. The couple claimed they were "swingers" with previous experience in group sex, say recent court filings.
"(The male sheriff) stated he was always looking for ways to earn income over and above his regular employment," says their statement of defence.
The case has stalled for much of the past two years while lawyers have been conducting interviews with the parties, fleshing out details of the claim and damages being sought, and researching the law and other case precedents in Canada. A trial date is expected soon.
www.mikeoncrime.com
Timeline
November 18, 2006 -- Two off-duty sheriff's officers meet local porn star Oshean de St. Claire de Guise and her husband, Johannes, in the Desire nightclub in downtown Winnipeg. The pair eventually agrees to a filmed sexual encounter later that night.
November 19, 2006 -- Johannes gets nearly an hour of raw footage of his wife involved in a threesome with the two sheriff's officers inside their Garry Street studio apartment. The couple signed consent forms allowing themselves to be videotaped "for a commercial purpose."
November 24, 2006 -- Oshean and Johannes give the sheriff's officers a private copy of the edited video.
December 28, 2006 -- The sheriff's officers say they learn, for the first time, that a video of their sexual encounter has been posted on Oshean's personal website and is for sale.
Early January 2007 -- Both sheriff's officers are suspended without pay. Justice officials say they are required, even when off duty, to not "bring a detrimental reflection on the reputation of the employer." They are also prohibited from engaging in activities that could "affect their ability to perform their duties" or the ability of the employer to manage.
January 18, 2007 -- The couple hire a lawyer and file a civil suit against Oshean and Johannes, seeking permanent removal of the video, shutdown of the website and undisclosed financial damages.
February 2007 -- The couple are allowed to return to work, but go on stress leave. They also file a grievance over lost wages.
April 2007 -- A judge issues an injunction to remove the video in question from Oshean's website, bur refuses the sheriff's officers' request to shut down the entire site. However, the video can be reposted and sold if Oshean and her husband get a favourable judicial ruling at trial.
In one corner is an amateur Winnipeg porn star and her videographer husband, wrapping themselves in the "freedom of expression" flag and insisting they've done nothing illegal by cruising local bars looking for subjects to star in their latest fleshy flick.
In the other corner are two well-respected provincial sheriff's officers who say they've been humiliated and ridiculed by inmates and co-workers after a naughty video of a drunken off-duty tryst surfaced on the Internet.
The Winnipeg Free Press has uncovered extensive new details about the unusual case as it heads toward a date with a judge later this year. Both parties have clearly laid out their positions in affidavits that have been filed with the Court of Queen's Bench.
The male and female sheriff's officers, who have been living common-law for several years, were suspended without pay in December 2006 after justice officials learned of a racy online video that showed them in consensual sex acts with a woman named Oshean de St. Claire de Guise.
Oshean's website revealed an explicit, 45-second clip of the video and encouraged visitors to purchase a membership to see the entire 40-minute romp. The website contained several other videos and promises: "No paid actors and no script... this is REAL reality porn."
The couple got their jobs back in early 2007 and also filed a lawsuit, claiming they didn't knowingly consent to having the video become public. They met Oshean and her husband, Johannes, in a Winnipeg bar during Grey Cup week in November 2006 and say they agreed to be filmed "privately" for their own viewing pleasure.
Lawyers representing Oshean and Johannes fired back, saying the sheriffs knew exactly what they were getting into and don't have a legal leg to stand on in trying to quash the video they have dubbed The Grey Cup Blonde.
"They were thrilled with the film and the fact it could be viewed on our website," lawyer David Guttman wrote in a recently amended statement of defence. They have also produced signed consent forms in which the sheriffs agreed to "participate in adult photo/video production for commercial purposes."
"There are significant public interests in copyright and free and uncensored circulation of information to the Internet," Guttman wrote in outlining one of the key issues for trial. "When a production is filmed, edited and prepared for release, with the consent of the performers, does copyright not belong to the filmmaker or producer? The principles of freedom of expression must be safeguarded."
A judge ordered a temporary injunction in April 2007 that ordered Oshean to remove the specific video from her website. He refused to shut down the entire site, as the sheriffs had requested.
However, the saucy video remains in legal limbo and can be reposted and distributed for sale if Oshean and her husband get a favourable ruling at trial -- and Guttman predicts the added publicity will actually backfire on the sheriff's officers by resulting in even greater exposure for his clients and their product.
Both sheriffs say their lives have been forever affected by their involvement in the videotaped encounter. They claim Oshean and Johannes plied them with alcohol, which likely contributed to them not understanding the apparent terms of the consent forms they signed.
"I've suffered great anxiety, stress and humiliation," the female said in a recent affidavit. "The thought that members of the public at large can download these images at any time makes me physically ill."
She said they have been subjected to taunting by inmates and "treated with derision" by co-workers.
"The damage to my reputation and my dignity has been, and continues to be, enormous," she wrote.
Oshean and Johannes claim the sheriff's officers initiated the sexual acts that night by asking numerous questions about the adult entertainment business. The couple claimed they were "swingers" with previous experience in group sex, say recent court filings.
"(The male sheriff) stated he was always looking for ways to earn income over and above his regular employment," says their statement of defence.
The case has stalled for much of the past two years while lawyers have been conducting interviews with the parties, fleshing out details of the claim and damages being sought, and researching the law and other case precedents in Canada. A trial date is expected soon.
www.mikeoncrime.com
Timeline
November 18, 2006 -- Two off-duty sheriff's officers meet local porn star Oshean de St. Claire de Guise and her husband, Johannes, in the Desire nightclub in downtown Winnipeg. The pair eventually agrees to a filmed sexual encounter later that night.
November 19, 2006 -- Johannes gets nearly an hour of raw footage of his wife involved in a threesome with the two sheriff's officers inside their Garry Street studio apartment. The couple signed consent forms allowing themselves to be videotaped "for a commercial purpose."
November 24, 2006 -- Oshean and Johannes give the sheriff's officers a private copy of the edited video.
December 28, 2006 -- The sheriff's officers say they learn, for the first time, that a video of their sexual encounter has been posted on Oshean's personal website and is for sale.
Early January 2007 -- Both sheriff's officers are suspended without pay. Justice officials say they are required, even when off duty, to not "bring a detrimental reflection on the reputation of the employer." They are also prohibited from engaging in activities that could "affect their ability to perform their duties" or the ability of the employer to manage.
January 18, 2007 -- The couple hire a lawyer and file a civil suit against Oshean and Johannes, seeking permanent removal of the video, shutdown of the website and undisclosed financial damages.
February 2007 -- The couple are allowed to return to work, but go on stress leave. They also file a grievance over lost wages.
April 2007 -- A judge issues an injunction to remove the video in question from Oshean's website, bur refuses the sheriff's officers' request to shut down the entire site. However, the video can be reposted and sold if Oshean and her husband get a favourable judicial ruling at trial.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 10:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home