I first saw Jamie Gillis in the early ’70s, sometimes in 35mm films at the Pussycat Theaters, but mostly in cheap 16mm films at dive movie houses on East Hollywood Boulevard, one dollar to get in. He was the one guy in the movie you were always sure was enjoying himself. There was not an ounce of bullshit in his sexual performance. His dick was always hard, even when left without female attention, patiently waiting under the constant movement of the bottom two fingers on his left hand; I remember thinking once that I had never seen him soft.

In 1989 when I was preparing to shoot the first Buttman scene, I knew that this was the guy to play Eddie, the pervert lead. I knew because when I was in an orgy with him in 1983 he positioned himself on the floor under this new, young girl so she could sit on his face. I had never seen anyone love asshole like him. I was so in awe of meeting him. There was a new, young girl in that orgy that I had been paired with. I had a feeling Jamie really liked her, so I pushed her over to him as a gift to the master. She didn’t regret it. He thanked me later, wow.

There is the story that when he lived with Serena, the nubile redhead porn star of the mid ’70s, he would always kiss her goodbye in the morning by kissing her asshole.

And there was the 1986 XRCO Awards show. An 18-year-old Careena Collins, in a skimpy white dress with her ass jutting out, walks by me, and before I can put my tongue back in my mouth she’s talking to Jamie. Then they were gone, to commit some unspeakable act of exquisite ass obsession.  Eight years later the two of them sat in my living room together watching the Super Bowl, talking about student-teacher relationships.

I am credited with doing the first gonzo movies, but what is called gonzo today really was done first by Jamie. He came up with the “Dirty Debutantes” concept of interviewing girls before a sex scene.  He did “On The Prowl” before I shot him in the first Buttman scene, in 1989.</p>

Jamie is part of the first generation of porn stars. We knew almost nothing about the erotic arts before him.

Then, out of the blue, the Justice Department recently filed this:

MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHN STAGLIANO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Crim. No. 08-093 (RJL)

The U.S. requests the court to prevent defendants, their attorneys and their witnesses from using testimony, remarks, evidence, questions, arguments or other expression relating to matters referred to below. The government believes that such expression would be inadmissible in court, confusing or misleading to jurors and irreparably damaging to the government’s case.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Stagliano has appeared in numerous media outlets to assert his personal views on this prosecution since he was indicted and arraigned in this case. In the context of trial, defendant’s statements would be irrelevant, inflammatory and, in some instances, blatant misstatements of the law. For example, in several interviews conducted by reason.tv, defendant stated:

…the reason why I think this case is important is because it is another area where the government thinks they should be able to run our lives…

…that’s what the government wants to suppress. That, to me, is just rotten. Kick the [ ] bastards out, but that’s not going to happen because they are the ones who are controlling us…

…I didn’t know I was breaking the law… What law? Somebody’s going to interpret that I was breaking the law. That’s just really bad…

…Do you want to live in a kind of country where the government can just say I don’t like you, I don’t like your ideas and what you are doing and let’s just put you in jail…

Defendant also agreed with the interviewer that if convicted of the charged offenses he could “spend the rest of his life in jail.”

In another interview conducted by reason.tv, the defendant stated,

…DVD sales are going down rather rapidly right now, and people are consuming their pornography on the Internet. And the community standard of the Internet is very different.

When this Miller case came down in 1973, pornography, if it was going to be shown anywhere, was going to be shown in a theater. The theater was going to be in a public street where everybody could drive by the marquee and see that it’s there, and their children could see that it’s there. Everything had to be out in the open.

That’s a way different world than what we have today, where people consume pornography in the privacy of their own homes, just on their computers. It’s not in the public’s face at all when it’s there.

In that same interview, in response to the question, “Why do you think the prosecutions is coming now?,” he stated,

Maybe they wanted to do it quickly before the election so that they could throw a bone to the religious right and say, “See, we’re upholding what you want us to uphold, so vote for us; keep us in office.”

Finally, in an interview appearing in the Los Angeles Times on July 3, 2008, defendant stated,

Is the Times suggesting that enforcing obscenity laws will stop people from breaking other laws? Aren’t we already at the point where a government official can get you on some law somewhere if he doesn’t like you? Isn’t that what an obscenity really is? I have no idea when I’m breaking this law.

I’m amazed! The Justice Department is repeating some of my best lines. I’m glad the judge will get to hear them. But how could I get in trouble for just talking about my case?

The Justice Department then gives a legal analysis of why what I said could not possibly be heard by the jurors. The problem is that when I was saying these things I was not rehearsing my testimony at trial. I was challenging this law in a public forum. That is what democracy is. If the accused cannot say in public, or in a courtroom, that he thinks the law is bad, where can he say this?! After he is in jail? How stupid. Lawyers and judges treat me and the jury like children, for our own good of course.

Each of these above quotes is taken out of context. I’m fine with that for most of them, except the second one. What I said before that quote is relevant to Evil Angel customers. Here’s the entire quote:

“The real key here is, this is a way for the average guy alone at home to get off — or girl; I’ve known a lot of girls that are into stuff like this, especially the squirting stuff because that focuses on female orgasm, and so it’s a real prejudiced movie, I mean y’know, male orgasm’s all over porno movies; female orgasm is not… The thing is, pornography is the way for people with less money and less power to get off. If you’ve got lots of money, if you’ve got prestige, if you were a king or a nobleman a couple hundred years ago, or if today you’re like a high-priced lawyer or a congressman or a senator … or a governor of New York, you can afford call girls. You can get off. You can have your sexual desires satisfied, but if you’re a normal working guy, you can’t afford that. And this (porno) is what you get off on, and this is what your pleasure is, and that’s what the government wants to suppress. And that, to me, is just rotten. That’s just, you know, kick the motherf… ’scuse me, bastards out, but it’s not gonna happen, because they’re the ones who’re controlling us.”

Incredibly, the Justice Department is so paranoid that a jury member will hear this that they have filed this motion to shut me up. Apparently it is very important that jurors are not confused by the context of a law in society. They must approach this case as an exercise in logic. Did I violate the obscenity law or not? But please do not worry about any of the apparent vagaries or ill-defined terms in the law. You need to figure this out for yourself, without reference to the society we live in, or any experience or ideas you have about that society, other than whether or not you think your neighbors would go, “Yecch!” if they saw one of my indicted movies. Now is that most of their neighbors who would be disgusted, or every single one of them? There is, of course, no room for different lifestyles in this bizarrely created legal world.

The judge is sitting on a ruling on motions. He probably does not want this case in his courtroom, but doesn’t think he has precedent enough to throw it out. The current DOJ didn’t start this and probably will offer me a deal to get rid of it. Except maybe they already realize that I will never accept a deal.

I look forward to a circus trial in D.C. I’m going to line up the Storm Squirters (sexy girls in storm trooper outfits and squirt guns) across from the Milk Nymphos (girls dressed as milk maids armed with enema bottles filled with milk) in front of the courthouse during the trial. Their ensuing battle should make for great video, and PR. Or maybe the DOJ will just cave and drop the charges, which would be a big victory for adult content.

In any case, as long as this is pending the DOJ cannot bust me in any other area in America on obscenity charges because there is a ruling against multiple prosecutions happening at the same time against a pornographer. They tried to drain Phil Harvey of Adam and Eve by doing this back in the ’80s (or early ’90s?), and this tactic was ruled abusive by some court.

And as a bonus, as long as this drags on I get a celebrity boost that has helped me get attention for my ideas. I probably should send the DOJ a thank you note.

By John Stagliano

People are not going to agree on lots of things, but actions taken based on certain controversial ideas must be evaluated by their outcome.

Remember what they told us before the first bailout: that this 800-plus billion dollars was needed to save the economy. They rushed through a bill telling us there was no time to waste.

What has happened since then? Things have gotten much worse than at the time of this first bailout … so … did this bailout work? Did the money given to Wall Street bankers help the people of America (aside from the executives at the companies saved from bankruptcy by taxpayer money, so they could still give themselves millions of dollars in bonuses)? No, this huge welfare-for-rich-people program only seems to have benefited a few people. Can we at least remember that experience now?

Maybe we should try and learn a bit about how the real world works from this experience?

So far it looks like we have learned nothing. A new stimulus program was passed recently by Congress in the same perverse way. We were told again that action needed to be taken immediately or else the sky would fall. There was no time to read the 700-page document listing all the people and organizations that would receive this nearly trillion dollars of taxpayer money. They had to have the money now.

Is this a good idea? All I ask is that we as a nation do not now close ours eyes to what is happening around us. Please look to see if anything improves because of the stimulus package.

Unfortunately, the first result seems to be that instead of encouraging confidence in business, private employers are now laying people off much more. They see that business is not good, and seems to be getting worse, and they are struggling to stay out of bankruptcy. We are waiting for things to get better.
I just worry that the money that the government is now taking from us in the form of higher taxes, and in inflation-causing debt, is taking away jobs from the private sector. That money is now being used by government to create jobs. However, all jobs are not created equal. Some are created by businessmen who need to make a profit to survive. They need to find things that people freely buy from them, things that people want. The jobs created by government are not designed to produce products that people freely buy. The government is not a for-profit business. It is an entity that takes money from people and decides for them how to spend it, based not on the profit motive, but on political considerations.
This is all maybe OK because it has created a job that did not exist before … or did it? The problem is that the money used to create that job came from somewhere. It came out of the pockets of taxpaying Americans. Those Americans now have less money to spend on what they freely would choose to buy. That spending had supported a job in the private sector that is now turned into a public sector job. There are no new jobs created in this case without jobs being lost. Is this argument correct?
Please look at what happens over the next few months and years carefully. They are spending lots and lots of our money. We owe it to ourselves to follow the outcome of their actions.=

And the beat(ings) go on…

As I write this the Secretary of the Treasury is on TV telling America that what we need to get out of the mess created by government encouraging banks to make bad loans to homeowners, is for banks to make bad loans to small businesses.  The phrase I need to define here is “bad loans”.  What started the housing crisis was the government taking action to encourage, or in the case of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, require, banks to make loans to people with inferior credit.  This lead to the debacle we face today.  Now the banks are being given a mandate by the Obama administration to make loans easier to get by small business.  What Secretary Geitner is saying is:  make loans you would not otherwise make, that is make loans to small businesses that you are not now making now because of the bad prospects of the loan being paid back.  And the government will do everything it can, print money or take it from the taxpayers, to make sure banks have the funds to do this.
The government has now said that it would guarantee these loans to small business just it guaranteed the loans made by Fanny Freddy.  So banks will now make bad loans, knowing they will be paid back by the government if the business fails.(It all looks like a con game to me. How can we manipulate the system and public opinion so our friends and us can get more money?)
Please let us watch closely as this plays out in the economy.  This will be revealed over a period of years, so don’t forget what was done today.  If I am wrong and this does save the economy I will apologize profusely.

Remember what they told us before the first bailout: That this 800 plus billion dollars was needed to save the economy. They rushed through a bill telling us there was no time to waste. What has happened since then? Things have gotten much worse than what it was like at the time of this first bailout….so….did this bailout work? Did the money given to wall street bankers help the people of America? (aside from the excutives at the companies saved from bankruptcy by tax payer money, so they could still give themselves millions of dollars in bonuses?) No this huge welfare for rich people program only seems to have benefited a few people. Can we at least remember that experience now? Maybe we should try and learn a bit about how the real world works from this experience?

So far it looks like we have learned nothing. A new stimulus program was passed recently by congress in the same perverse way. We were told again that action needed to be taken immediately or else the sky would fall. There was no time to read the 700 page document listing all the people and organizations that would receive this nearly trillion dollars of tax payer money. They had to have the money now. Is this a good idea? All I ask is that we as a nation do not now close ours eyes to what is happening around us. Please look to see if anything improves because of the stimulus package.

Unfortunately the first result seems to be that instead of encouraging confidence in business, private employers are now laying people off much more. They see that business is not good, and seems to be getting worse, and they are struggling to stay out of bankruptcy. We are waiting for things to get better. I just worry that the money that the government is now taking from us in the form of higher taxes, and in inflation causing debt, is taking away jobs from the private sector. That money is now being used by government to create jobs. However all jobs are not created equal. Some are created by businessman who need to make a profit to survive. They need to find things that people freely buy from them, things that people want. The jobs created by government are not designed to produce products that people freely buy. The government is not a for profit business. It is an entity that takes money from people and decides for them how to spend it, based not on the profit motive, but on political considerations. This is all maybe O.K. because it has created a job that did not exist before, or did it? The problem is that the money used to create that job came from somewhere. It came out of the pockets of tax paying Americans, those Americans now had less money to spend on what they freely would choose to buy. That spending had supported a job in the private sector that is now turned into a public sector job. There are no new jobs created in this case without jobs being lost. Is this argument correct? Please look at what happens over the next few months and years carefully. They are spending lots and lots of our money. We owe it to ourselves to follow the outcome of their actions.