Allan B. Gelbard kicks faggot Derek Gay from LA Direct Models

Attorney Allan B. Gelbard kicked faggot Derek Gay from LA Direct Models and hopefully will have that faggot locked up in jail where he belong. Its no surprise that scumbag gay pimp Derek Gay is forcing the girls to do privates fucking Johns and he needs to be locked up behind bars where he belongs. we want to warn Allan B. Gelbard and his 2 clients that Derek will 1000000% black ball the 2 girls from ever working with any porn company ever again and that he threatens directors and producers to not let them use his girls if they hire his old talent that he has black balled. He has been doing this for years. Thats how he black balled War Machine, Jenner and many more. Your best bet if you want to keep working in porn is to get rid of this faggot, shut him down, and have him locked up.


Yours Truly, LA Direct Models staff that hates Derek

TEL: (818)386-9200 – FAX: (818)386-9289 – E-MAIL: [email protected]
June 20, 2013
Via: Certified Mail/RR
CC E-Mail: [email protected]
Derek Hey
Direct Models, Inc.
3599 Cahuenga Blvd. West, Suite 4D
Los Angeles, CA 90068
Re: Katarzyna and Magdalena Tyszka v. Direct Models, Inc. and Derek Hey.
Dear Mr. Hay:
This office represents Katarzyna Tyszka and Magdalena Tyszka who perform under their stage names
Natalia and Natasha Starr and, collectively, as the Starr sisters. Please send all further communications
pertaining to this matter directly to my attention.
You are hereby informed that my clients are no longer to be represented by Direct Models, Inc. (“DMI”).
My clients hereby terminate their respective written agreements with DMI dated 8/17/12 (the Agreement(s)) due
to DMI’s illegal, unethical and tortuous activities. Demand is hereby made that you immediately discontinue
any and all such representation and remove my client’s from your website(s).
Upon review of the file, it appears that my clients have, among others, the following obvious claims:
A) The Agreements state that Direct Models, Inc. is entitled to fifteen percent (15%) of earnings
generated by my client on agency bookings, yet you have charged production companies an additional fee –
which we believe to be, on average, one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per booking – that was neither disclosed
in the original Agreement, nor credited to my client’s earnings. My client is entitled to 85% of these improperly
collected funds. This constitutes a material breach of the agreement as well as a conflict of interest in violation
of Ca Labor Code §1700.40 and would appear to constitute an unfair business practice pursuant to Ca Civ Code
§17200, et seq.
B) Direct Models, Inc. sent my clients, without their prior knowledge, permission or consent, to
engage in “privates” and threatened them when they arrived and were confronted by “Johns” rather than
legitimate producers. Your actions are clearly not related to the legitimate production of adult entertainment
products and are, therefore, not protected under People v. Freeman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 419. Rather, your conduct
violates California Penal Code §§ 266i(a)(1, 2). Further, you have sent my clients across state lines to do so in
violation of the Mann Act (see 18 U.S.C. § 2421, et seq). This also constitutes a violation of Ca Labor Code
§1700.33 and an illegal business practice pursuant to Ca Civ Code 17200, et seq.
C) The Agreements provided to my clients, as a single integrated agreement (see Ca Civ Code §
1642), were not, in their entirety, provided to and/or approved by the Labor Commissioner which constitutes a
violation of Ca Labor Code §1700.23 and constitutes grounds to void the entire agreement.
We have also ascertained that, having been advised that my clients intended to terminate your agency
relationship, you – personally – have undertaken a campaign to defame my clients and to intentionally interfere
in their ongoing business ventures. We have been advised that you – personally – have contacted the promoters
of the EXXXotica convention and threatened to damage the event and/or any participant therein that employ
either or both of my clients. Such actions constitutes extortion, a clear breach on your fiduciary duties to my
clients, and tortuous interference with their prospective businesses. Demand is hereby made that you
discontinue such actions and that you immediately contact any and all parties to whom you have made these
threats and withdraw same without qualification. Be advised that my clients will proceed against DMI and you
for any and all lost income that results from your unlawful actions.
My clients hereby demand that they both be immediately released – in writing – from their Agreements
and that they be removed from your website(s). You are not to hold yourself out as their agent, and are not to
take any actions whatsoever to interfere with their ongoing careers. If you fail to promptly comply with my
clients’ demands, please be advised that we intend to pursue all available remedies pursuant to Ca Labor Code §
1700.44, Ca B&P Code § 17200 et seq, and will seek reimbursement for their attorney’s fees and costs pursuant
to Ca Civ Code § 1717. As it appears your unlawful activities may impact all your clients, we reserve the right
to bring any such proceeding as the representative of a class of equally situated individuals.
You are hereby placed on notice that a dispute exists as to your right to any and/or all fees you have
obtained as related to my clients. Demand is hereby made that you preserve all evidence in your possession
and/or under your control related thereto including but not limited to client booking records, revenue reports,
billing information, banking information, copies of your website, e-mails, and any and all third party agreements
and/or communications pertaining to my clients, whether in hard copy or electronic form.
Please respond to this letter – in writing – no later than 5:00 pm on June 21, 2013. If you are represented
by counsel in this matter, your attorney should contact me directly.
Nothing in this letter is intended as, nor shall be construed as, an admission against the interests of my
client, nor a waiver of her claims, rights, remedies or defenses, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Allan B. Gelbard
Attorney at Law

LA Direct Response

License No: TA ? 3872
Re: Actors:
Magdalena Tyszka p/k/a Natasha Starr
Katarzyna Tyszka p/k/a Natalia Starr
06 / 27 / 2013
Via: Certified Mail/ RR
CC E?mail: [email protected]
Alan B Gelbard,
15760 Ventura Blvd, Suite 801,
Encino, CA 91436
Dear Mr Gelbard,
This communication is for settlement purposes only and all information conveyed is subject
to the confidentiality provisions of California Evidence Code § 1152 and Federal Rule of Evidence 408
and may not be used for any other purpose or proceeding.”
1. Please be advised in the first instance, that the Artist / Agency Agreement between Ms
Kataryzyna Tyszka p/k/a Natalia Starr and this Agency remains in full force and effect
and is not terminated. Neither shall it be terminated unless and until one of the
following actions occur,
(a) Decision at conclusion of administrative process to determine same at Dept of Labor
Standards of Enforcement.
(b) Superior court judge decision following legal proceeding to litigate same.
(c) Expiration date of Agreement.
2. The Artist / Agency Agreement between Magdalena Tyszka p/k/a Natasha Starr was
terminated on June 12th 2013 by mutual agreement. Ms Magdalena Tyszka has since
been sent both E?mail and registered mail, written communications confirming same.
Ms Tyszka visited the Agency office on 06 / 21 / 2013, met with Agency head accountant
and closed out her financial affairs.
3. Your allegations A is incorrect, disputed, lacks merit and substance and is in fact common
‘ custom and practice’ in all elements of talent Agency representation of actors both
within the ‘adult industry ‘ and in the ‘mainstream industry’ of television, feature film
and theatrical stage. Such matter has been widely litigated previously and decision found
in favor of the Agencies on same by DLSE administrative process. For the record the
standardized fee provided to Agency for the casting of its Talent, in no way has any
relevance to or bearing on, the fee negotiated by Agency on behalf its Actor client.
4. Your allegation B – is wholly without truth nor merit since Direct Models does not book
‘privates’ and without question you have no evidence to support such a claim. Direct
Models only accepts and negotiates employment for its Artists from legitimate studios,
directors and producers and at all times conducts itself in a manner befitting and
according to that to be expected and lawfully required, of a professional and licensed
Talent Agency.
Further, allegation of violation of the Mann Act, a federal criminal statute, and California
Penal Code §§ 266i(a) (1,2) – State felony pandering, is a violation of the ABA Canons of
Professional Responsibility on your part. “A lawyer shall not present, participate in
presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a
civil matter.” Knowing that such claim entirely lack supporting evidence, it could also be
the case that you are “knowingly making a false statement or fact”, equally a violation of
the same Canons.
It is widely known that Sydney Coca made such allegation to you and others, for he
makes public comment on same at social gatherings.
Given that ‘ Sydney Coca aka Raul’ husband of Magdalena Tyszka has previously and
continues now, to arrange for the booking of both sisters for ‘privates’ a pseudonym for
acts of prostitution, and continues to do so even as these communications go back and
forth, one wonders as to the credibility that will be afforded testimony from him that
licensed Agency acted in the manner alleged. Lest there be any misunderstanding there
are numerous person that will attest to his aforementioned activity and only this past
week he has arranged for and administrated the enlistment of the sisters with the escort
agency aka ‘front for prostitution’ known as ‘Pam Peaks’ with website at Mr Coca’s efforts in this regard are not either limited to his own
booking of the sisters or to their placement with an escort service for booking for
‘privates’ , for Mr Coca also drives the sisters to and from such bookings and charges
each a commission from their earnings.
Be advised that it is Direct Models intent to publicize your threat of the ‘Mann Act” and
California Penal Code to the adult entertainment industry.
6. Your allegation C – is disputed. Documents pertinent to the Talent Agencies Act and the
Agreement created between Artist and Agency are approved by Labor Commissioner
and nothing in any other document is detrimental to the interest of the Artist. In fact,
suggested codes of behavior and reasonable standards of practice to be observed, only
benefit Artist and the Agencies ability to best represent Artist ? to the benefit of Artist.
Such suggestion is neither a violation of the Talent Agencies Act.
7. Kataryzyna Tyszka p/k/a Natalia Starr is an “Artist”, within the meaning of Labor Code
§1700.4(b) and Direct Models Inc is a licensed talent agency. California Labor Code
§1700.44(a) provides in relevant part. “ In cases of controversy arising under this chapter
the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner”..You
are well aware of the administrative process for determining controversy that exist
regarding Talent Agencies and that all administrative remedies must be exhausted
before other proceeding. I suggest that remedy be sought as statutorily prescribed, and
more appropriately be dropped. Be apprised that attorney fees recovery in California is
mutual and goes to the prevailing party.
8. You are informed that your clients have allowed it to become widely known the amount
of your fee, which be so small as to clearly not be commensurate on a professional basis
with the work involved and therefore gives rise to opine if the ligation threatened be not
so much in the interest of your client but your own. Direct Models has good reason to
believe that such practice and circumstance extend beyond the clients named here but
also with regard to others in similar actions against other talent agencies for which your
law practice is equally becoming widely known. One wonders therefore if you yourself
have in fact become the protagonist and merely use the client as a pawn with which to
maneuver. Once again this is a breach of ABA Canons of Professional Responsibility that
prescribe “a lawyer should always act in a manner consistent with the best interest of his
client” and additionally that “ attorney may not acquire a proprietary interest in the
litigation”. If the motivation for the action be to seek termination of the Artist / Agency
Agreement – other attorneys have achieved same with mutual agreement in short order,
utilizing good faith negotiation, where your method has not.
9. As the Premier Talent Agency in the adult entertainment industry ? Direct Models is
proud to hold several exclusive contractual relationships with producers of conventions
one of which is indeed Exxxotica show. None of our Artists are ‘employed’ at these shows
and the show at no time has ‘paid nor employed ‘ any Artist through Direct Models for
appearance at such a show. It has already been clearly stated in this letter as to the
mutual termination of Agency Agreement with ‘Magdalena Tyszka p/k/a Natasha Starr,
who is free to book herself however and with whomever, she or her husband choose to
do so.
Kataryzyna Tyszka p/k/a Natalia Starr is not included in those Artists scheduled to appear
via Direct Models at next Exxxotica show, though has been in the past and will be again in
the future. The show reasonably requires that Direct Models provide variation to its
Artist schedule from show to show.
Noted is your demand to respond within 24 hrs because of your impending vacation.
Response is made in a timely manner and within a time frame that would ordinarily be
considered reasonable. Direct Models does not feel compelled to hurry such a response
by falsely created time frame nor impending vacation.
Nothing in this letter is intended as, nor shall be construed as, an admission against the
interest of Direct Models, nor a waiver of any claims, rights, remedies or defenses, all of
which are hereby expressly reserved.
Derek Hay on behalf of Direct Models Inc.

Alec Baldwin Homophobic and Gay?

Because Alec Baldwin called a faggot gay news reporter a “toxic little queen” he now is called homophobic and forced to say sorry. These stupid whores in the video below from The Young Turks say “they would like to know where his homophobia comes from and what skeletons are hiding on his closet” implying that his is a closet fag cause he calls a fag a fag. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY. SOMEONE PLEASE GET BOTH OF THESE STUPID FAGHAGS WIKI PAGES AND FAST.

Adrian Chen from Gawker, Richard Orbitz from The Daily Beast and now this other faggot George Stark are all protected to write lies about people just cause they are gay?

mike south quits the internet

Mike south is spending all his money trying to keep his shitty blog online. the smae shitty blog that updates 3 times a month with shitty stories and lies pulled from others sites and stuff he gets from the first page of goggle searches. problem is Mike south cant afford to pay his server bill. even mr south admits that his blog loses money because no one clicks on his ads and no pays for porn anymore.

so faggot south is stuck in his old trailer drinking six packs of jizz flavored beer and now his server bill is skyrocketing! he cant do anything about porn anonymous!

faggot south just threw in the towle and destroyed his old computer!

Alec Baldwin calls reporter “toxic little queen”

A faggot reporter from the Daily Mail falsely reported that Alec Baldwins wife was tweeting during James Gandolfini’s funeral. The faggot didn’t seem to understand that auto-tweet or delayed tweeting. This little faggot decided to try to disgrace Alec and his wife and all hell breaks loose when Alec Baldwin calls the reporter a “toxic little queen.”

check the comments on the article:

the fagots are all upset he used the word queen?????

so what are we supposed to call men who suck cock and swallow man jizz and pass hiv infections to others?????

Faggots?? cocksuckers?! punks? queers? queens? jizz suckers?! poofs? pillow biters?!

oh i get it were not supposed to say anything. he just a reporter.

the fact is this ‘toxic little queen’ saw an opportunity for some easy traffic to his article and took it. he knew the story wasnt true.

and the straight legend god Alec Baldwin is supposed to take it on the chin and let this faggot run wild without any discipline?

what is the world cumming too?

patriot act took all your writes away faggot! but you can get married if you want too!

here is a picture of Alec Baldwin with his beutiful daughter Ireland.

This is what happens when you fuck a women. you get kids that are sometmes beautiful!

understand faggot? what did you create in the world? hiv? sore assholes? lies in a Daily Mail story?

toxic queen is being nice. be glad alec baldwin didnt tell you what he really thinks of fags.



I bet Mike says he is moving servers again lol. Lying faggot Jew hillbilly mother fucker.

Gay wigger failure at life fanboi Sean Matthew Tompkins will just ignore everyone about it cause hes a pussy.

Both sites will be down all weekend and next week.

Yours truly, Porn Anonymous

Hey Christianxxx you every wonder what your husband will look like when he gets older?

Hey Christianxxx you every wonder what your husband will look like when he gets older? Well trannies do not age well at all and I wanted to give you a little preview of what you will be waking up next to every morning in the near future. Crissy you are one mentally ill Texas queer.

How much does Christianxxx aka christian wians pay for health insurance?

how much does christianxxx pay for health insurance? does his insurance provider know he fucks trannies for a living? I bet they would cancel his insurance if they knew he was a porn dude and fucked trannies for a living. why dont we call all the main insurance companies and let them know about his risky behavior? insurance companies muct have a fraud tip line for sure right? lets do it and crush this faggot!

Faggots can now marry in California – Supreme court strikes down Doma

Faggots can now marry in California again and teach your children to be gay.

Justices rule Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional and clear way for same-sex marriage to be restored in California.

A landmark supreme court ruling has struck down a controversial federal law that discriminated against gay couples in the US, delivering a stunning victory to campaigners who have fought for years to overturn it.

The court also knocked back a separate appeal against same-sex marriage laws in California, restoring the right to gay marriage in the largest US state and nearly doubling the number of Americans living in states where gay marriage would be legal.

Together, the two Wednesday rulings mark the biggest advance in civil liberties for gay people in a generation, and come amid growing political and international recognition that same-sex couples deserve equal legal treatment.

The most significant legal breakthrough came in the decision led by Anthony Kennedy to rule that the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) was unconstitutional because it deprived citizens of “equal liberty” before the law.

Doma, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, previously barred married gay couples from a range of crucial legal rights including federal tax and estate tax exemptions, social security benefits, and the right to be notified of the death of next of kin. It also meant that the married partners of gay Americans were not recognised under the immigration system, leading to heartbreaking splits for couples of different nationalities.

But in a case brought by a New York woman Edith Windsor, who faced a $313,000 estate tax bill after the death of her long-term partner Thea Spyer, lawyers successfully argued that Doma was an unconstitutional interference by Congress in the rights of states to determine marriage laws.

“Doma instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,” said the opinion, written by Kennedy and backed by a total of five of the nine court justices.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the fifth amendment.”

President Obama called the Doma ruling a “historic step forward for marriage equality” and said he had directed government departments to implement the ruling as quickly as possible.

“This historic ruling recognizes how unfair it is to treat married lesbian and gay couples as though they’re legal strangers,” added James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Edie and Thea were there for each other in sickness and in health like any other married couple. It’s only right for the federal government to recognize their marriage and the life they built together.”

The decision prompted a blistering dissent led by conservative justice Antonin Scalia, who called the decision itself and the technical ruling that the court had jurisdiction over such matters “jawdropping”. Reading from the bench, Scalia said: “Both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society.”

In a separate ruling on a 2008 California ballot measure known as Proposition 8, the justices ruled that anti-gay marriage campaigners did not have legal “standing”. The ruling paves the way for the restoration of gay marriage in California, which was permitted before a majority of voters blocked it under the 2008 ballot challenge.

Prop 8 was ruled later unconstitutional by two lower courts, whose rulings now stand. The supreme court opinion said that anti-gay marriage campaigners who brought the appeal could not show they had suffered injury.

“[The] petitioners have no role – special or otherwise – in its enforcement,” said the majority decision, written by the chief justice, John Roberts. “They therefore have no ‘personal stake’ in defending its enforcement that is distinguishable from the general interest of every California citizen.”

David Boies, one of the lawyers who argued against Proposition 8, said the court’s finding of no standing is significant because the court threw out the argument that same-sex marriage somehow harms people outside the marriage.

“They cannot point to anything that harms them because these two loving couples, and loving couples like them in the state of California, are now going to be able to get married,” he said in a statement on the steps of the court.

Earlier, both decisions brought audible gasps from those inside the court and scenes of jubilation among campaigners gathered outside.

At New York City’s LGBT Center, where Edie Windsor was due to speak with her lawyers, people “exchanged hugs and high-fives” at the morning’s news.

“Every day we see same-sex couples come through our doors, my friends, my family, people who just want to be recognized for the loving relationships they’ve nurtured, people with children who just want to be protected,” said the center’s executive director, Glennda Testino. “Today, the supreme court took a step to make sure it happens.”

“I woke up this morning thinking of Edie,” Testino said. “This was Edie’s chance for her relationship to be recognized on a national, broad level.”

Testino said that while thrilled with the Doma ruling, the LGBT community still must work to aid bullied school students, immigrants and transgender people.

Earlier, inside the supreme court, as reporters sprinted from the chamber down the court steps to deliver notes to news organizations, a roar built up outside that lasted for about a minute.

Nearly everyone outside saw the same news on their cell phones, refreshing Twitter constantly, with shouts of “Doma struck down!” emerging from all parts of the crowd. More updates continued. “On equal protection grounds!” “Kennedy!”