|
PART 4: CHAPTER 4
The Commission has relied heavily on information and intelligence provided by experienced federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities regarding the involvement of organized crime in the pornography industry. This first hand knowledge is based upon years of investigative experience in the highly complex and covert area of organized crime. Many of these law enforcement authorities testified before the Commission on January 21-22, 1986, in New York City, at a hearing devoted primarily to matters relating to organized crime. The Commission has also used investigative reports prepared by the United States Department of justice, the office of the Attorney General of California, the Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network (MAGLOCLEN), the Pennsylvania Crime Commission, the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department and others. Reliance on the investigative reports and the experience of these law enforcement authorities was necessary because the Commission operated without the authority to subpoena witnesses or compel their testimony regarding this sensitive area of inquiry.
Organized crime involvement in the pornography industry has been described by law enforcement officers and by organized crime operatives themselves. A retired veteran Federal Bureau of Investigation agent said of traditional[1126] organized crime members, "you cannot be in the field and distribute pornography without their consent . . . ."[1127] He added that the pornography trade is attractive to organized crime because "it's a fast way of making a buck."[1128] Aladena Fratianno, whose involvement in La Cosa Nostra dates back to the late 1940's has reached the same conclusion.[1129] In an interview with a Commission investigator, Fratianno described the connection as he knew it to be in the 1970's as follows:
Another individual who was the owner and operator of an "adult" bookstore and spent many years in the pornography business described his experience in dealing with organized crime:
The 1970 President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was unable to draw conclusions regarding the role of organized crime in the distribution of obscene and pornographic materials. The 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography found:
Although many persons have alleged that organized crime works hand-in-glove with the distributors of adult materials, there is at present no concrete evidence to support these statements.
The hypothesis that organized criminal elements either control or are "moving in" on the distribution of sexually oriented materials will doubtless continue to be speculated upon. The panel finds that there is insufficient evidence at present to warrant any conclusion in this regard.[1132]
There is some question about how the earlier Commission reached this conclusion.[1133] It is clear that the role of traditional organized crime in the pornography trade has increased substantially since the 1970 report was issued. Until 1970, only one LCN family, the Columbo organization, was known to have been involved significantly in the pornography business.[1134]
The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography has received reports from law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and legislators, describing the substantial role which organized crime, both in traditional (LCN) and non-traditional forms, plays in the pornography business in the United States today.[1135]
In addition to attorneys, many other professional persons assist organized crime families and their associates in the pornography business. Realtors handle land transactions knowing the ultimate purpose of the transaction is to facilitate the sale of obscene material.[1136] Landlords rent property to organized crime families knowing they will be used to warehouse obscene material or to sell, produce, distribute, or display obscene merchandise.[1137] Bankers process accounts and provide all manner of banking services (including the failure to report currency transactions as required by Title 31 United States Code). Printers and film processors develop the visual images taken by pornographers and turn them into finished products for sale or reproduction. Transportation companies and interstate carriers show no discretion in shipping obscene materials to increase organized crime family profits. Academics are paid to act as experts on behalf of organized crime members and associates who are brought to trial and challenged in public debates. Public figures including prosecutors, judges, city, county and state officials, zoning board members, and health department officials may be subjected to monetary and political influence. These people sometimes may ignore the organized criminal activity or impose minimal sanctions when punishment is unavoidable.
Following are highlights of reports provided to this Commission relating to traditional organized crime involvement in and control of the pornography industry.
One report came from a group of law enforcement officers, coordinated through the Investigative Services Division of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department, which undertook a study in 1978 to determine the extent of organized crime involvement in the pornography industry.[1138] One reason for the study was, "(knowledge) that organized crime generally involves itself in situations where the gain far outreaches the risk. The pornography industry fits this description."[1139] "An initial probe determined that law enforcement could document Organized Crime control in certain geographic areas. However, it did not appear in 1977 that any single law enforcement body was in possession of documentation reflecting the situation on a national level".[1140] (emphasis added)
The project participants determined that traditional organized crime was substantially involved in and did essentially control much of the major pornography distribution in the United States during the years 1977 and 1978. The group further concluded that the combination of the large amounts of money involved, the incredibly low priority obscenity enforcement had within police departments and prosecutors' offices in an area where manpower intensive investigations were essential for success, and the imposition of minimal fines and no jail time upon random convictions resulted in a low risk and high profit endeavor for organized crime figures who became involved in pornography.[1141] During its seventy-eight year history, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been engaged periodically in investigation of persons and organizations who violate the federal obscenity laws. Though the FBI has not recently been involved in many large scale obscenity related investigations,[1142] Federal Bureau of Investigation director, William H. Webster, along with present and former special agents of the FBI have provided current information about the pornography industry.[1143] In the late 1970's the FBI prepared a report detailing the extent of organized crime involvement in pornography. In preparing that report, the Bureau conducted a survey of the fifty-nine FBI field offices.[1144] Based on the survey and other sources, FBI intelligence analysts concluded:
Information obtained (during the course of the enclosed survey) points out the vast control of the multi-million dollar pornography business in the United States by a few individuals with direct connections with what is commonly known as the organized crime establishment in the United States, specifically, La Cosa Nostra.. . . Information received from sources of this Bureau indicates that pornography is (a major) income maker for La Cosa Nostra in the United States behind gambling and narcotics. Although La Cosa Nostra does not physically oversee the day-to-day workings of the majority of pornography business in the United States, it is apparent they have "agreements" with those involved in the pornography business in allowing these people to operate independently by paying off members of organized crime for the privilege of being allowed to operate in certain geographical areas.[1145]
In 1985, at the request of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, Director Webster conducted a brief survey of the fiftynine FBI field offices concerning their knowledge of involvement of traditional organized crime in pornography. Director Webster advised this Commission, "About three quarters of those offices indicated that they have no verifiable information that organized crime was involved either directly or through extortion in the manufacturing or distribution of pornography. Several offices, did, however, report some involvement by members and associates of organized crime."[1146]
The FBI reported that on April 30, 1981, Joseph Palladino, a known dealer in pornography in Boston and Worcester, Massachusetts, met with Gennaro J. Anginlo in Boston.[1147] Anginlo is the underboss of the New England Organized Crime Family.[1148] Palladino complained that one Carlo Mastrototaro was opening an adult bookstore in the Worcester area to compete with the one jointly owned by Palladino and Mastrototaro. Palladino could not understand why the New York family had authorized Carlo to operate a competing pornography business. Prior to this, Palladino said he had considered Robert DiBernardo of the New York family to be his "compadre". In response, Anginlo became angry because Palladino had first sought an explanation from DeBernado. Anginlo said this prevented him from contacting DeBernado's boss in New York and he would now have to deal with Sam Curfari, capo of the Genovese family in Massachusetts.[1149]
One former FBI agent told the Commission:
In my opinion, based upon twenty-three years of experience in pornography and obscenity investigations and study, it is practically impossible to be in the retail end of the pornography industry (today) without dealing in some fashion with organized crime either the mafia or some other facet of non-mafia never-the-less highly organized crime.[1150]
The Chicago Police Department has been involved in the investigation of organized crime families who are engaged in the distribution of pornography in the Midwest.[1151] Thomas Bohling of the Chicago Police Department Organized Crime Division, Vice Control Section reported, "...... it is the belief of state, federal, and local law enforcement that the pornography industry is controlled by organized crime families. If they do not own the business outright, they most certainly extract street tax from independent smut peddlers."[1152]
An overwhelming majority of obscene and pornographic materials are produced in the Los Angeles, California, area.[1153] Organized crime families from Chicago, New York, New Jersey, and Florida are openly controlling and directing the major pornography operations in Los Angeles.[1154] According to Chief Daryl F. Gates of the Los Angeles Police Department, "Organized crime infiltrated the pornography industry in Los Angeles in 1969 due to its lucrative financial benefits. By 1975, organized crime controlled eighty percent of the industry and it is estimated that this figure is between eighty-five to ninety percent today."[1155]
An investigative report submitted to the California Legislature by the Attorney General of California discussed organized crime infiltration into the pornography industry:
In the early 1970's... four organized crime groups moved in on pornography operations in California. They met relatively little resistance because the weak-structured organized crime group of Southern California lacked the necessary strength to deter the infiltration of organized crime from the East.
Organized crime figures first focused on production and retail operations in California. In this effort, they used the influence of their established national distribution network and effectively resorted to illegal and unfair business tactics. The newly arrived organized crime groups formed film duplication companies which illegally duplicated the films of independent producers and displayed them at nationwide organized crime controlled theaters. Faced with continued piracy and loss of profits, many legitimate producers were forced to deal with organized crime controlled distribution companies and film processing labs.
After gaining control or ownership of many California wholesale and retail companies, organized crime forced other independent retailers out of business through price manipulation. Wholesale prices to independent retailers were raised while prices to organized crime controlled outlets were lowered. Independents were undersold by organized crime controlled outlets until lost profits forced them out of business. Many competitors were bought out which allowed the subsequent raising of prices in other parts of the market. Some dealers that openly opposed this takeover were silenced by means of extortion and arson.[1156]
In 1984, California Attorney General John Van De Kamp reported that the arrival of home video cassette recorders on the market in 1979 was accompanied by a growing demand for adult video tapes.[1157] California pornographers, linked to the Gambino, DeCavalcante, Luchese and Columbo organized crime families entered this market through companies that produce, duplicate, distribute and sell adult video tapes.[1158]
Law enforcement agents have described the control of organized crime families in the pornography industry. Organized crime figures and associates are involved in the commerce essential to the pornography business through ownership of the distribution sources of the material. The 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography reported ". . . crime syndicate members reported in interviews that it was not worthwhile for the syndicate to enter the business, primarily because there was no real economic inducement.[1159] In 1986, there are tremendous profits in the pornography industry. These profits are of the type that can be easily hidden from the Internal Revenue Service, because of the cash transactions and the policy of no cash receipts for merchandise.[1160]
Law enforcement officials have described large profit margins in the pornography business today.[1161] Magazines which cost fifty cents to produce wholesale for five dollars and the retail price is ten dollars or more.[1162] A fifty minute eight millimeter film wholesales for three dollars and retails for twenty dollars.[1163] Video cassette tapes which wholesale for fifteen dollars often retail for eighty to ninety-five dollars.[1164]
The well-known pornographic film "Deep Throat" was produced by the Periano brothers of the Columbo organized crime family for $25,000 and is reliably estimated to have grossed fifty million dollars as of 1982.[1165] The film was ". . . the biggest money maker of any film to that time and possibly since, in the state of Florida."[1166]
Joseph, Anthony, and Louis Peraino all became millionaires as a result of "Deep Throat."[1167] They used profits from the film to build a vast financial empire in the 1970s that included ownership of garment companies in New York and Miami, investment companies, a sixty-five-foot yacht in the Bahamas, "adults only" pornographic theaters in Los Angeles, and record and music publishing companies on both the east and west coasts.[1168] From 1973 to 1976, their corporate empire included Bryanston Distributors, Inc., a motion picture company that earned twenty million dollars in its first year of operation.[1169] The Perianos also used profits from "Deep Throat" to finance drug smuggling operations in the Caribbean.[1170]
Aladena Fratianno, a.k.a., Jimmy Fratianno, a male member of a La Cosa Nostra organized crime family and a former Capo and later acting boss of the Los Angeles crime family, told this Commission that large profits have kept organized crime heavily involved in the obscenity industry.[1171] Fratianno described this involvement to a Commission investigator as follows:
The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography concludes that organized crime in its traditional LCN forms and in other forms exerts substantial influence and control over the obscenity industry. Though a number of significant producers and distributors are not members of LCN families, all major producers and distributors of obscene material are highly organized and carry out illegal activities with a great deal of sophistication.[1173]
This influence and control has increased since the report of the 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and is particularly evident in the distribution of pornographic materials.[1174] Organized crime elements have found that the large financial gains to be reaped from pornography far outweigh the risks associated with the trade.
In addition to the myriad of other harms and anti-social effects brought about by obscenity[1175] there is a link between traditional organized crime group involvement in the obscenity business and many other types of criminal activity. Physical violence, injury, prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse are so interlinked in many cases as to be almost inseparable except according to statutory definitions. Among the crimes known to be interlinked with the pornography industry are:
One of the largest pornographers in the United States during the 1970's was Michael George Thevis, who headed Peachtree News in Atlanta, Georgia, and 106 other corporations.[1176] In October, 1979 Thevis was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations including murder, arson, and extortion.[1177]
A leading figure in the national distribution of the film "Deep Throat", Robert De-Salvo, has been missing since January, 1976 and is presumed to have been murdered.[1178] De-Salvo provided evidence on behalf of the United States in the Bc trial arising from the "Deep Throat" film distribution.[1179]
During the late 1970s a number of persons involved in the pornography business were murdered in what were believed by law enforcement agents to be pornography turf wars.[1180] The son of Joseph Periano, one of the producers of "Deep Throat" along with an innocent woman, was murdered "gangland style".[1181]
Immediately prior to this Commission's hearing in Chicago, Illinois, in July, 1985, Patsy Ricciardi, owner of the Admiral Theater there, was found murdered. Chicago Police believe his murder was related to his dealings in the pornography business.[1182]
The damage and injuries range from those sustained by performers[1183] forced to engage in physically harmful acts which can often result in permanent injury, [1184] to damage to property,[1185] "knee-breaking"[1186] and arson.[1187]
A veteran FBI agent told the Commission "Over the years there has been heavy violence associated with the pornography industry. Some of the current well-known names in the industry have reported threats against them or physical brutality."[1188]
A bookstore operator, associated with members of organized crime families, described the "discipline" within the pornography industry for those who choose to disobey rules regarding pricing, territory and other matters.[1119] He said, ". . . Bonjay a year and half ago, took one of the guys held him by his arms up against the wall in the alley, and it's common knowledge, the car ran into him, with the front bumper up against the wall and shattered his knees. That's a pretty good discipline.[1190] This same witness also reported bombs being thrown into stores that were not complying with general price agreements or failed to pay a street tax to organized crime families.[1191]
"Prostitution is the foundation upon which pornography is built.... Pornography cannot exist without prostitution.... It is impossible to separate pornography from prostitution. The acts are identical except in pornography there is a permanent record of the woman's abuse."[1192]
It is estimated that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 adult women who have been used in prostitution in America.[1193] A recent study found that the average age of the working prostitute was twenty-two; the average age a woman started working as prostitute was seventeen; sixty-three percent of the prostitutes had run away from home; eighty percent were victims of sexual abuse; eighty percent had pimps; and eighty-three percent had no savings or other financial resources.[1194] These women, who have been subject to every form of rape, sexual assault, and battery, and whose lives are totally controlled by their pimps, are used and abused by pornographers for the creation of their wares.[1195] It is impossible for most sexually explicit books, magazines, or films to be produced without acts of prostitution.[1196]
Michael Joseph Glitta, one of the two major pornography distributors in Chicago, and a lieutenant in the Accardo organized crime family, controlled a "strip joint" where numerous persons have been arrested for prostitution related offenses.[1197] Pornographer Martin Hodas was identified by his former bodyguard as the one-time owner of a massage parlor and prostitution empire in the northeast.
Narcotics are often distributed to performers who appear in pornographic materials to lower their inhibitions and to create a dependency.[1198] Profits earned by organized crime from pornography sales have been used to finance drug smuggling.[1199]
Joseph Periano, a soldier in the Columbo organized crime family, invested proceeds from the movie "Deep Throat" in drug smuggling. New York State Senator Christopher Mega, Chairman of the New York Organized Crime Commission, said, "Few have imagined that the profits of "Deep Throat" may have been part of the capital invested in the development of Norman's Cay into the major drug smuggling base north of the Panama Canal."[1200]
Local police also report that "narcotic transactions are present in these deteriorating neighborhoods (where "adult bookstores" locate) and go hand-in-hand with the rampant criminal activity in those areas.[1201]
The nature of the pornography business provides inviting opportunities for skimming on[1202] every level. There is often dishonesty among producers, wholesalers, distributors, retailers and others who attempt to cheat each other.[1203] The often "cash only" business creates immense opportunities to launder money received from other organized crime activity.
Bookstores which primarily sell sexually explicit material have a consistent sales format throughout the United States.[1204] Generally there are two separate operations for accounting purposes, loosely identified as "front room" and "back room" operations.[1205] The front room operation generally consists of a sales area for paperback books, magazines, rubber goods, lotions, stimulants and other materials.[1206] The front room operations profits are generally used to pay for rent, utilities, materials, and employee wages.[1207] The back room operations consist of peep machines which are coin operated and produce substantial income that is usually not reported as taxable income.[1208] A local police officer noted, "The back room operation usually takes in twice the amount as the frontroom operation."[1209] A bookstore operator and associate of known organized crime family members, reported to this Commission that such "skimming" commonly occurs with video cassette rentals and magazines as well as the peep machine coin boxes.[1210]
Organized crime associate Martin Hodas, who was convicted in federal court, Buffalo, New York, in 1985 for obscenity violations has been heavily involved in peep machines.[1211]
Michael Thevis, once a major distributor of pornography in the South, told a meeting of organized crime family members and associates that he owned ninety percent of the movie viewmatic machines in the United States. Michael was interrupted by Robert DiBernardo, a person alleged to be a member of the Gambino (and/or DeCalvalcante)[1212] organized crime family, who reminded him that though he might have "proprietary rights" the machines were owned by "the family."[1213]
The idea of converting run down theatres in the Midwest into pornographic adult movie houses to launder cash from other illegal rackets was the brain child of Chicago organized crime figure Patsy Riccardi who was murdered in July, 1985.[1214]
Myron and Michael Wisotsky were convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in late 1985, for tax evasion which arose from skimming activities at their sexually oriented bookstores.[1215]
A bookstore operator told the Commission:
Organized crime elements involved in the production of videocassettes and movies have been known to infringe copyrights by the "pirating" of films produced by legitimate studios and the use of music or other parts of a legitimate enterprise without royalty agreements.[1217]
Layers of corporations and hidden transactions of all descriptions are used by organized crime families involved in pornography to conceal true ownership and activities.[1218]
Other crimes associated with organized crime involvement in obscenity include child pornography,[1219] possession, transfer and sale of machine guns and silencers,[1220] and illegal gambling.[1221]
Reuben Sturman, also known as Robert Stern, Roy C. English, Robert Butler, Paul Shuster, and Paul Bekker, of Clevelaned, Ohio, Los Angeles, California, and elsewhere, is widely believed to be the largest distributor of pornography in the world.[1212] Law enforcement authorities believe that the Sturman empire has financial control of nearly two hundred businesses in nineteen states, one Canadian province and six foreign countries.[1223] Sturman is closely associated with known organized crime family members.
James Fratianno described Sturman's connection with Robert DiBernardo, a member of the LCN Gambino (and/or de Cavalcante) Family:"... if he has a problem he goes to Debe.[1214] Sturman and DiBernardo have had a long term business relationship, "... they were partners, plus ... if Debe wanted [Sturman] to do something, he [Sturman] would do it."[1225]
More than twenty years ago Sturman was a small time candy, tobacco and comic book distributor who moved slowly into pornographic magazines.[1226] Avoiding any serious legal problems, he built the business into a mammoth operation encompassing all phases from production to retail sales with a myriad of corporate identities.
One account describes his organization as follows:
[Sturman] structured his many companies from retail stores to video production firms, in a honeycomb of nominees, false names and dead associates to avoid local obscenity prosecutions. [A 1985 tax case] reveals that the corporate structure has grown hydraheaded over the years, apparently with the more serious intent of avoiding taxes.[1227]
Sturman's influence on the pornography industry is so great because his enterprise produces a very wide range of items and distributes them to retailers through countless disguised channels.[1228] According to Los Angeles police, 580 of the 765 adult video arcade machines there are owned by companies controlled by Sturman.[1229] Police report that Sturman typically installs equipment worth $22,000 to $60,000 at no cost to the store owner.[1230] In exchange, he reaps fifty percent of the income from the peepshows.[1231] A store owner in San Diego, California, described Sturman's hold on the industry there by saying, "People are afraid of him because of his power. He could just cut people off. You could just die out there. Paranoia sets in and I'm sure he uses it to his advantage."[1232]
Over the past few years, a number of Sturman's associates and corporations have been convicted on obscenity charges and other violations of law.[1233] Sturman, himself however, has evaded any serious consequences for his acts.[1234]
An indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Cleveland in 1985 alleged Sturman conspired to evade millions of dollars in taxes by laundering seven million dollars through foreign bank accounts and also charges that he destroyed records subpoenaed by the grand jury.[1235] One of his co-defendants, Scott Dormen, pled guilty in late 1985 to his part in the conspiracy, admitting that he skimmed money from Sturman's income and delivered at least $450,000 in cash, to Sturman that went unreported.[1236] When Sturman is the subject of prosecution,
[he] professes indignity when legally attacked-as he always is-and fights back savagely. He also covers legal fees and fines of associates and gives them bonuses when they face the consequences of arrest.[1237]
Reuben Sturman controls General Video of America (GVA), one of the largest distributors of sexually explicit video tape cassettes in the United States.[1238] GVA recently released and distributed a "White Paper" to video cassette retailers giving them notice of government action to prosecute obscenity violations. The "White Paper" also announced the creation of a legal defense fund for GVA and others involved in the distribution of such video cassettes. In addition, they offer a toll-free number for retailers to call an attorney provided by GVA to advise them on legal matters.[1239]
A local law enforcement officer told this Commission, "The industry is very difficult to investigate as a local police officer, as a business in one jurisdiction, in general, is incorporated in another jurisdiction, receives materials from another jurisdiction and is controlled by individuals in another jurisdiction. Federal law enforcement involvement is an absolute necessity to attack the real problem of organized crime influence."[1240] While no known additional organized crime families may live in a particular state, the effect of their production, distribution and sale of obscene material can be readily apparent. Another local law enforcement officer concluded, "Left unchecked, organized crime, in a traditional sense, can suck the lifeblood out of a community. Many times, their enterprises have been viewed as "service" oriented or victimless crimes. However, it tears at the moral fiber of society and through unbridled corruption, it can weaken the government."[1243]
The findings of the 1978 Federal Bureau of Investigation analysis remain essentially correct:
In conclusion, organized crime involvement in pornography ... is indeed significant, and there is an obvious national control directly, and indirectly by organized crime figures of that industry in the United States. Few pornographers can operate in the United States independently without some involvement with organized crime. Only through a well coordinated all out national effort, from the investigative and prosecutive forces can we ever hope to stem the tide of pornography. More importantly, the huge profits gathered by organized crime in this area and redirected to other lucrative forms of crime, such as narcotics and investment in legitimate business enterprises, are certainly cause for national concern, even if there is community apathy toward pornography.[1241]
The most significant federal obscenity investigation and prosecution to date arose in the Southern District of Florida. The case, initiated by local police officers, was eventually the focus of a nationwide investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in cooperation with the United States Department of Justice Organized Crime Strike Force. Special Attorney Marcella Cohen, at the request of this Commission, summarized the investigation and some of its results to date as follows:
The undercover FBI investigation was referred to as MIPORN, an acronym, which stood for Miami Pornography. MIPORN was a two and a half year updercover investigation into organized crime influence in the pornography industry. This investigation resulted in many indictments for interstate transportation of obscene materials and revealed other criminal activities resulting in indictments and forfeitures including but not limited to racketeering, possession and transfer of machine guns and silencers, child pornography, interstate transportation of stolen property and copyright violations. Bruce Ellavsky and Patrick Livingston[1243] were two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who were assigned to the Miami Office of the FBI in September and October 1977. They were to investigate large scale producers and distributors of pornography throughout the United States. In October 1977 an undercover company was established in South Florida which was to be the basis of the operation. The name Golde Coaste Specialties, Inc., was chosen as the name of the company and it was incorporated in the State of Florida. There were a number of companies with variations of the name Gold Coast so it was necessary to put an "e" on the end of gold and "e" on the end of coast in order to incorporate in Florida. Special Agent Bruce Ellavsky used the undercover name Bruce Wakerly and Patrick Livingston used the name Pat Salamone. Additionally, an office warehouse was rented where meetings were conducted. The "front" business of the warehouse was a blue jeans store while the back of warehouse was where the pornography, business was located. At a later time, G&C Sales, Ltd., was established in the Grand Cayman Islands to lend credibility to the operation.
When the agents spoke to individuals who were involved in the distribution of pornography throughout the industry, the agents would inform them that they had a mail order operation involved in the distribution of "hard" or hard core pornographic eight millimeter films, magazines, and video tape cassettes. In reality there was of course no such mail order business.
For the purpose of the undercover operation the agents altered the manner in which they dressed. They dressed casually and wore gold necklaces, diamond rings, gold bracelets and expensive watches.
During the course of the undercover investigation the agents travelled throughout the country and met with pornographers in virtually every major city including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis and providence. The agents found that major producers and distributors of eight millimeter films, magazines and video tape cassettes would meet every six months in various cities throughout the United States. The meetings were usually not conventions with any planned agendas. They would frequently take place in a major hotel within the city, and conversations would take place in the lobby areas of the hotel, or in lounges or restaurants located off the lobbies. The agents on occasion would plan or attend a meeting which would take place in the room of whichever distributor or producer of pornography they wanted to meet with, see their products or f-urther discuss potential orders. At other times, booths would be set up at a consumer electronics show. The following are some of the individuals and, companies investigated during the course of the two and a half year undercover MIPORN investigation:
Star Distributors is a group of companies headquartered in New York, New York, and controlled by Robert "Debe" DiBernardo.
DiBernardo's close business associates at Star Distributors were Theodore "Teddy" Rothstein and Andrew "Andre" D'Apice.
In April 1978, the agents attended a pornography convention at the Fairmont Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana. In a restaurant in that hotel, the agents were introduced to Teddy Rothstein by Rubin Gottesman of National Film Company, Los Angeles, California. Mr. Rothstein agreed to supply Golde Coaste Specialties with hardcore pornographic eight millimeter films, magazines and video tape cassettes. Rothstein said he would introduce the agents to Andre D'Apice, his eight millimeter man. Later on that same date in a hotel room at the Fairmont Hotel, the agents were involved in conversations involving the sale of films with Roger Summers and Joe Mallen of California International Distributors. Present at that meeting were Rothstein and D'Apice. D'Apice said he was a partner of Rothstein's and that they produced the film series entitled "Super Sound" and "Mustang." D'Apice stated they supplied distributors throughout the United States with these series and would also supply them-to the agents.
On April 21 and April 22, 1978, the agents had a series of meetings at Star Distributors, 150 Lafayette Street, New York City. They first met with D'Apice who informed them that there had been some concern as to whether Golde Coaste was a front for law enforcement; however Rothstein.and Robert "Debe" DiBernardo said they had checked Golde Coaste amongst their national associates. Rothstein had confirmed with Al Tapper (now deceased) of California Publishers Liquidating Corporation that the agents were "good people" and that Tapper had dealt with them for a substantial period and not been arrested.
During the meeting D'Apice stated that the agents "would have no problem whatsoever dealing with Mr. Rothstein or 'Debe' as long as you are one hundred per cent good people . . . but if you should cross ?Debe' there are plenty of people who would kill for him."
Between April 24, 1978, and April 27, 1978, the agents recorded a number of telephone conversations between themselves and the principals at star Distributors concerning shipping arrangements for the films which had been ordered. The agents were informed by D'Apice which false names would be utilized as shipper and consignee.
During the sentencing hearing on this case, November 20, 1981, the following pertinent information was provided to the Court:
Jimmy "the Weasel" Fratianno at the time of the hearing was in the Witness Protection Program and guarded on a• twenty-four hour basis by the United States Marshal's Service. Jimmy Fratianno told Special Agent Bruce Ellavsky in his conversations with the agent in May 1980 and May 1981, that he, Fratianno, was a member and one time acting boss of the Los Angeles family of what he called La Cosa Nostra, an organized crime group in Los Angeles. During 1975, Jimmy Fratianno was a partner of Mickey Fine in a pornography operation located in Los Angeles. Initially, in 1975, when Fratianno was dealing with Mickey Fine, he wanted to obtain some money from some of the pornographers who were operating in the Los Angeles area over whom he had no control. Fratianno later learned that Reuben Sturman, a major distributor of sexually explicit material located in Cleveland, had some interest in the Los Angeles area. At that time Jimmy Fratianno spoke to Pete Milano, a capo in the Los Angeles crime family who informed him that previously he and some individuals from the Cleveland organized crime family with Ettore "Terry" Zappi, had put pressure on Reuben Sturman for money and obtained $200,000 from Sturman due to Sturman's association with various families in New York. During this conversation with Pete Milano, Fratianno told Milano that he wanted to do the same thing. Milano said in order for him to do that he would have to see Ettore "Terry" Zappi. At that point Fratianno made arrangements through Tony Randazzo, a member of the Cleveland organized crime family to make an introduction to Zappi which he did, in Florida. During their association together as partners, Fine, on several occasions, had mentioned the name "Debe" to Fratianno. Fratianno asked Mickey Fine who "Debe" was. Fine told him that as far as pornography goes, "Debe" is the main man in the country.
During April 1976, Fratianno went to the Westchester Premier Theatre in New York to see a Frank Sinatra concert. While at the Weschester Premier Theatre he met with Ettore "Terry" Zappi, who Jimmy Fratianno knew as a capo in the Gambino crime family organized crime family in New York. When Fratianno saw Zappi there were two other people with him, one of whom was Frankie Duff, also known as Frankie D'Appolino, a Gambino member. The other person at that time was unknown to him at first. Fratianno spoke with Zappi about pornography and the fact that he wanted to get into the business to a greater extent in the Los Angeles area. During this conversation, Fratianno said to.Zappi that every time he talks about pornography in the Los Angeles area, the name "Debe" comes up. He said he hears the name constantly "Debe." Fratianno asked Zappi who "Debe" was. Zappi laughed and said "Debe" was sitting right next to him and then introduced Fratianno to Robert DiBernardo. Fratianno proceeded to talk to DiBernardo concerning the pornography business, especially pertaining to the Los Angeles area. DiBernardo told him that if he wanted to get in the business he should have done it four or five years ago. Now it was all locked up. Fratianno said that when he was introduced to DiBernardo by Zappi at that time he knew from the way he was introduced at that time DiBernardo was not a member. Zappi said that he and DiBernardo were partners in the pornography business.
Fratianno said that during 1977 he heard from several sources that DiBernardo had been made a member of the Gambino family. There was testimony at the sentencing hearing in United States V. DiBernardo, that in November 1981, Mr. DiBernardo's car was parked in front of Paul Castellano's home in Staten Island. Several reliable sources supplied information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that DiBernardo is a made member of the Carlo Gambino organized crime family. A source advised that DiBernardo is a big money earner in pornography in New York, Miami and other places throughont the United States and he enjoyed the privilege of reporting directly to Paul Castellano, now deceased, who was allegedly the boss of the Carlo Gambino organized crime family.
United States v. Ralph Borello, was a federal customs cases, involving the smuggling of 771 eight millimeter films by means of false invoices. Borello allowed someone else to use his name in importing shipments of eight millimeter films. Informant information revealed that in 1981 Borello was an employee of Robert DiBernardo. Show World, a multi-faceted pornography outlet on 8th Avenue in New York City, is controlled by Robert DiBernardo. Borello himself has been involved in the pornography industry since the 1960s and maintains the machines in Show World. Borello had twenty-two prior convictions mostly stemming from obscenity related arrests. One was for bribery of a police officer in order to discover information regarding impending searches.
Paul Gorman said he could obtain sound projectors for Golde coaste Specialities at a very good price. He said that these projectors were often "too hot to touch" and that there might be a truck having an accident in the near future, at which time he would have several hundred projectors available.
On March 15, 1978, in a tape recorded conversation Gorman said that Anthony DeFalco was in court today because one of the stores had been "hit", that is, searched by police. Gorman said that in the past they had almost been "hit" while a load of child pornography was still on the premises but that the police had gotten to the film room one 'day late. Gorman said they had shipped the child pornography the previous day and that the police were jerks for not grabbing the stuff earlier.
In October 1978, the agents met with Tony DeFalco and Paul Gorman. DeFalco mentioned the fact that he had received numerous inquiries in the past several months regarding the agents and that there were rumors around the industry that the agents were "the heat." DeFalco said that the pornography business was a close knit group of individuals, with virtually everyone in the industry has known each other for many years, and that it is almost impossible for someone new to break into the business.
DeFalco said that the hard core market was shifting from eight millimeter film to video tape cassettes. The agents told DeFalco that they had conversations with California International Distributors (CID) regarding the shipment of eight millimeter films to Miami, Florida. DeFalco was told that CID said they were on probation in Florida and would not ship hard core to Florida. DeFalco said he would handle the shipment of eight millimeter hard core film and video tape cassettes to Golde Coaste Specialties in Miami from CID in Los Angeles, California. DeFalco said the agents should contact CID, place an order and it would be shipped directly to him in Chicago, Illinois. DeFalco said that upon receiving the shipment he would immediately reship it from Chicago to Miami, Florida. DeFalco said he wanted to make a few dollars on the transaction for his trouble, but would be happy to enter into this arrangement with the agents and CID of Los Angeles, California.
DeFalco said he had received a letter from a person "established" in the pornography business which stated in effect that anyone dealing with the agents should be wary of them being cops.
DeFalco and the agents discussed Golde Coaste Specialities' interest in the purchase of L.W. Sales, Chicago, Illinois. DeFalco said he had never been able to get along with Leo Weintraub in the past and would prefer to have the agents running Weintraub's operation in Chicago. DeFalco said Weintraub continues to run his wholesale operation out of his warehouse on Milwaukee Avenue-but that he sold all five of his bookstores. DeFalco would not identify the individual to whom these stores were sold. DeFalco said that the peep machines were owned by another individual and said that the new owner of the stores would receive only a percentage of the earnings from the peep show operation.
In November 1977, the agents met with DiBona who said that he, Guarino and Renzi had to be careful of shipping to South Florida because of the "heat" from local and federal authorities. However, he said that they had "checked out" the agents and they were good people. Two shipments to Golde Coaste Specialities in Miami, Florida, from Imperial News contained fictitious names in the return address.
In July 1978, Arno told the agents that there were rumors that they were "the heat". Arno alluded to the fact that he was suspicious that the agents were cops. Arno said the pornography industry was a close knit organization and that most individuals have been in the business several years and no one seemed to know where the agents came from.
Arno said he did not want to take any calls concerning legitimate or "straight" video tape cassettes over his telephone at his residence or his office. He stated that arrangements could be worked out whereby he would call from a pay telephone to obtain the orders desired by Golde Coaste Specialties. Arno said he had previously been somewhat reluctant to inform the agents that he was involved in the reproduction of pirated motion pictures as this was a violation of federal copyright statutes. Arno said there were several problems connected with the production of these video tape cassettes. He said there was a lot of activity by the FBI recently and that several producers of pirated films had been "busted" in the recent past and were now working for the FBI.
In January 1978, Arno said he had first heard problems about the agents from Ron Selinger (Bon Jay Sales, Baltimore, Maryland) and that Selinger said he was going to meet with the agents in Miami, Florida, until he received a telephone call from a friend of his advising him not to deal with the agents.
Arno said Chicago was a rough town and that a former employee of Leo Weintraub by the name of Rene had had his operation blown up in Chicago reportedly by Weintraub.
In January 1980, the agents met with Norman Arno at his Video Cassettes X Rated (VCX) display at the Consumer Electronics Show held at the Hilton Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada. The agents told Arno they brought with them a check to give to him as payment on a debt. The agents and Arno went inside the VCX display. At that time Arno said that Special Agent William Kelly of the Miami, FBI Office was behind them and was about to photograph them. Arno told Ellavsky not to turn around and not to write the check at that time but to come to his hospitality suite at Ceasar's Palace where he would receive payment.
In October 1978, the agents met with Joe Zernic in the lobby of the Olympic Hotel in Seattle Washington, at one of the semi-annual pornography conventions discussed earlier. Zernic said he had heard rumors about the agents being cops. Zernic said he had tried to contact the person who had introduced the agents to him without success. On January 5, 1980, the agents met with Reuben Sturman, owner of Sovereign News Company, Cleveland, Ohio. They discussed past dealings the agents had with Sovereign News. The agents mentioned they had previously dealt with Joe Zernic and had purchased eight millimeter film and magazines from him. Sturman said that Zernic was one of his key employees.
Sturman has since been indicted on other charges relating to tax evasion.
In March 1978, Summers stated that his boss, Noel Bloom had problems in Florida approximately seven years ago and that he was somewhat reluctant to ship to Florida because he was under probation in that state. Summers discussed with the agents the possibility of contacting Reuben Sturman at Sovereign News, Cleveland, Ohio, to assure prompt shipment of the "Swedish Erotica" series through Sturman to the agents in Miami, Florida. Between August 1978 and March 1979, the agents had conversations with Summers and Mallen regarding the scheme of shipping "Swedish Erotica" through a third party.
In March 1978, the agents dealt with Leo Weintraub, owner of L and W Sales who agreed to ship hardcore films to Miami, Florida.
Nelson told the agents in March 1978 that he would have to check out the agents prior to shipping to Miami, Florida. Nelson asked who the agents had dealt with and the agents said A & A Distributors of Chicago, Illinois. Thereafter, Nelson placed a long distance telephone call to Tony DeFalco, main owner of A & A Distributors. After talking to DeFalco, Nelson said he would ship hard core material to Golde Coaste. Nelson said DeFalco said the agents were "good people" and that he (Nelson) trusted DeFalco completely, having dealt with him for a long period of time. The shipments were sent from Foxx Distributors, 47 Minna Place, San Francisco, California, which was a fictitious name and address.
In July 1978, the agents discussed with Bouldreault the possibility of distributing a bondage film depicting sadomasochistic acts. Bouldreault said he was very interested and that he could possibly distribute several hundred copies of such films to his outlets in Amsterdam.
During a sentencing hearing on June 28, 1984, the United States submitted invoices demonstrating that from 1976 through mid-1978 child pornography materials were shipped from Le Salon and a company by the name of All American Studios, San Francisco California. Among the titles was "Bare Boys", a sexuall, explicit magazine depicting boys under the age of fourteen There was testimony by William Dworin, of the Los Angeles Police Department, who stated that he knew one of the boys depicted it the magazine and that he was actually eight or nine years old when the picture was taken.
Bagnell stated in September 1977, that he was one of the largest distributors and producers of hard core pornography and that he specialized in "boy-boy" (homosexual) films. Bagnell said he had organized crime connections in Chicago and New York. Bagnell said he was having problems with Bon Jay Sales in Baltimore, Maryland, and that he was traveling to New York in a few days to meet with his "connection" people. They would then take a trip to Bon Jay to collect a $34,000 debt that Bon Jay owed to Bagnell for hard-core pornography that Bagnell had previously shipped to them.
Bagnell said he was leaving Los Angeles to travel to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to drop off a large shipment of hard-core "boy-boy" film. Bagnell said Oklahoma was one of the few states to which he was reluctant to ship hard-core pornography by normal means and that he intended to deliver the film to Tulsa himself. Bagnell said he would accomplish this by placing the films on a. flight which would be leaving within an hour of his own personal flight to Tulsa, thereby having the film shipped as luggage via the airlines in a flight other than the flight he was taking. Bagnell said that this method made it impossible for law enforcement authorities to link the film to him.
An indictment charging Mohney and Wade with various violations of federal obscenity laws is set for trial in 1986.
In September 1978, Gaswirth mentioned to the agents that there had been rumors that they were FBI agents and if they were, he would be busted sometime- in the future. Gaswirth said that the rumors were diminishing in as much as various individuals in the pornography industry believed that if they were really agents some arrests would have occurred by this time.
Information at a sentencing hearing on January 29, 1982, and the sentencing memorandum filed in this case revealed the following:
Joseph Peraino and Louis "Butchie" Peraino are nonmember associates of the LCN organized crime family in New York City.[1244] Louis "Butchie" Peraino, Joseph Peraino, and DeStefano are reputed to run Arrow Film and Video through the use of extortion and other strong arm tactics. DeStefano has claimed to represent the interests of several LCN family members in investments in pornographic films in Los Angeles and has claimed to have made "big money" for his New York City organized crime connections. The activities of Louis and Joseph Peraino in the pornography business were financed by the LCN organized crime family and Louis and Joseph Peraino contribute large sums of money from their business to that LCN family.
In September 1980, Steve Ramirez operated a video lab, where he transferred films onto video tape as well as duplicated and distributed video tape cassettes. Ramirez said he was duplicating copies of the film "Deep Throat". He was approached by Louis Peraino and Vincent DiStephano who threatened him with physical harm and informed him that he was duplicating the film "Deep Throat" without their authorization. As a result of these threats, Ramirez closed his business. A substantial part of his business involved duplicating the films "Deep Throat" and "Devil in Miss Jones" for Norman Arno (S & L Distributors, Los Angeles, California). Peraino came to Ramirez because Arno had told him that Ramirez was doing the duplication.
In September 1979, the agents and Arieno discussed an order for the film "Debbie Does Dallas". Arieno said that the film was owned by Michael Zaffarano (now deceased and alleged to have been a member of an LCN organized crime family) but stated that Zaffarano had given Arieno permission to distribute it.. When the agent expressed doubt, Arieno said that he could call Zaffarano and verify the fact.
In April 1978, during a video taped meeting with Ray Hind, Hind discussed the pornography industry and the fact that during the previous week he had three telephone calls from "people within the industry" checking on the "legitimacy" of the agents. Hind said that his boss, Al Tapper, had personally contacted him from New Orleans, Louisiana, to inquire how long Hind had known the agents. Hind said he gave the agents a good recommendation and that everything was okay.
Hind claimed to be well known within the industry and said he was personally acquainted with Teddy Rothstein and Robert DiBernardo of Star Distributors, New York City. He said he had also received calls from "their people" checking on the agents.
In a tape recorded conversation in May, 1979, Beinstene said he spoke to Mickey Zaffarano regarding "Debbie Does Dallas." Bernstene said that through Zaffarano and Joe "Black" Arieno, he. would be in a position to distribute "Debbie Does Dallas." Bernstene said that three or four years ago, Zaffarano had placed him with S & L Distributors, (Norm Arno and Tommy Sinopoli) to insure that Sinapoli and Arno made payments to Zaffarno. Berstene said that Sinapoli, Arno and S & L Distributors were tied directly to Zaffarano. Bernstene said that during the time he was with S & L Distributors he made weekly payments to Zaffarano from Arno and S & L Distributors.
In October 1979, Bernstene described Zeichick (J & G Sales, Los Angeles, California) as a "no good guy" who had. "messed up" people in the past in some of his business dealings. Bernstene said Zeichick and Black were doing a good business and they were cutting into some of the customers of TVX Distributors.
Bernstene said that this was hurting TVX and other distributors but he could not put pressure on Zeichick or Black due to their close relationship with Zaffarano.
Bernstene said Zaffarano had just recently given the movie "Autobiography of a Flea" to Andre D'Apice (Star Distributors/KED New York City) to have as his movie. Bernstene said that if law enforcement officials and the IRS became aware of how much money Zaffarano made off his hard core movies, they could blow the lid off his operation.
Bernstene said it was like when "Deep Throat" and "The Devil in Miss Jones" were playing all around the country in 1972. If it were known how much money was actually made on these movies, a lot of people would have problems. In October 1979, Bernstene said that Walter Gernert would be coming to Las Vegas. Bernstene said that he was going to Vegas to "pay the juice". Berstene said the loan was for eight millimeter films which Walter Gernert was involved with.
Bernstene said that Angelo and Tony Farese recently came into the offices of TVX Distributors and advised him and his partner, Dave Friedman that they now controlled the movies "Deep Throat" and "Devil in Miss Jones" and that a fee of $10.00 per video tape cassette of these movies should be paid directly to the Fareses. Bernstene said that the Fareses advised him and Friedman that the Perainos no longer control the movies "Deep Throat" and "Devil in Miss Jones" and that 'the Fareses now controlled these movies.
On November 6, 1979, Bernstene said that when Michael Wisotsky was dealing with Arno, Wisotsky was doing business in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 a month. During that time Wisotsky told Bernstene that the agents were working for the "Feds." Wisotsky told him that he had gotten this information from Andre D'Apice.
On December 20, 1978, the agents met with Guglielmi, the owner of Central Sales. Guglielmi said he had over one million dollars in projectors in the basement of Central Sales and said this was a large part of his business. Guglielmi told the agents he was part owner of Miami Books in Miami, Florida, along with Star Distributors of New York City.
Guglielmi said he had a lot of heavy contacts in the Miami,, Florida, area and said that Bob Inman had sold out to him and then tried to steal some of his customers away. Guglielmi said that he does not take an individual like this to court to settle the matter. He said he takes it into his own hands and makes one phone call to Florida and "within ten minutes, turns a boy into a man."
In February 1979, the agents met with Rubin Gottesman and his wife Barbara Gottesman. Rubin Gottesman said he had been with Norman Arno (S & L Distributors) the previous evening and that Arno had showed him a video tape of the movie "Debbie Does Dallas." Gottesman said Arno told him that he had received the video rights to that movie from Mickey Zaffarno, the owner of the movie. Gottesman said Zaffarano had given Arno the national distribution rights for this movie and that Arno now had it available on video. When the agents asked to obtain a print of this movie for themselves Gottesman said he would not even consider doing this because he wanted to remain healthy. Gottesman said Zaffarano would not hesitate to use muscle if he believed someone was bootlegging his movies.
On March 23, 1978 Rubin Gottesman told the agents that in the past an individual was believed to be copying and distributing various hard-core movies. He said organized crime people had put money into these films and that this individual was "hit in the head." Gottesman said that should the agents begin duplicating movies such as "Deep Throat" and "The Devil -in Miss Jones", they would have to be prepared to take the heat.
In June 1979, Gottesman said he had gotten two movies from Joe Peraino (Arrow Films, New York and California), "Johanna" and "The Devil Inside of Me." Gottesman said both of these were Joe Peraino's movies and that he was paying Joe Peraino $300 each for the prints.
On May 17, 1978, the agents went into Bon Jay Sales, Inc. There was a discussion about two pimps who worked the east coast for Jack Gresser. These pimps obtained the girls for Gresser's bookstores and massage parlor operations in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C., areas. On May 24, 1978, an employee of Bon Jay Sales, Alan Swartz, said girls could be provided to the agents on their next trip to Bon Jay Sales and that another individual at Bon Jay Sales handled the procurement of girls for customers.
On August 10, 1978, in a telephone conversation with Jack Gresser, Gresser said that there had been rumors about the agents and he had been advised to stay away from them.
In July, 1979, Special Agent Bruce Ellavsky spoke to Manos about "boy-boy" (homosexual) films. Manos said that most of his business was in Tennessee and Alabama. Manos said he had a $300,000 lab when he does a lot of reproduction. He claimed to be the biggest in the videotape business outside California, Chicago and New York.
On December 1, 1978, Chuck Bernstene told an agent that he had access to pirated major motion pictures through a contact of his in Honolulu, Hawaii, by the name of Al Nunes. Berstene then called Nunes and made arrangements with him to meet the agent in Hawaii. Bob Courchese told the agent he had difficulties with the bookstore he had recently opened. He said he had pinball machines in the store and he had gotten pressure and muscle from the "boys" on the island. He said they had demanded a split of 70/30% with 70% going to them. Courchese said he could not live with the split and gave up the store. Courchese said he was still employed by Nunes, both at Nunes' bar and doing whatever else Nunes requested of him. Nunes gave the agent a bestiality film and said he would ship child pornography to Miami, which he subsequently did.
A separate case in the Southern District involved Michael Wisotsky, Myron Wisotsky, Robert Barkow and Donald Work [1245] Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.
The pornography business operated by Michael Wisotsky and his uncle Myron is the most significant one south of Atlanta, Georgia. They are considered to be key figures and upper echelon distributors of hard core pornography. At the time of the indictment in this case in 1983, Michael and Myron Wisotsky (referred to hereinafter as the Wisotskys) controlled between five hundred and seven hundred peep show machines in Southeast Florida. These machines were located in adult bookstores owned by corporations the Wisotkys controlled, as well as in independently owned bookstores. In 1983, the Wisotskys owned and controlled approximately two million dollar worth of assets through the use of nominees and sham corporations. The true ownership of these corporations was hidden to avoid the possibility of criminal prosecution. Documents show that over the course of ten years, the Wisotskys used the'names of unknowing nominees to register their corporations and caused their accountants and others to falsely subscribe these names to documents which were then mailed to the state and federal government. The investigation in this case revealed the Wisotskys owned or controlled over forty corporations. Of these, the fifteen most actively involved in the adult bookstore business were not registered under the name of either Michael or Myron Wisotsky.
When the investigation of the Wisotskys commenced, they immediately took an active role in attempting to thwart the Grand Jury investigation conducted by the Internal Revenue Service and the Miami Strike Force. Unbeknownst to the Internal Revenue Service and the Miami Strike Force, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was engaged in an undercover operation involving the Wisotskys during this same period of time. The Fort Lauderdale Police had placed an undercover detective in the Wisotsky organization. The prospect that the detective would be served with a federal grand jury subpoena caused the Fort Lauderdale Police to reveal his identity to Federal authorities and cooperation began between the two agencies.
Donald Work had been the Wisotskys' key man for a number of years. One of Work's duties was to oversee and manage the peep machine operation for the Wisotskys. Numerous bookstore owners and clerks were subpoenaed to the testify before Grand Jury and each of them asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege when asked about the Wisotskys' operation.
For a number of years, law enforcement agents attempted to locate the Braccos - a couple whose name appeared on many of the Wisotsky corporations. In March 1981, Special Agent Donald Burde of the Internal Revenue Service located them. They never had any business connections with the Wisotskys and had never heard of the corporations on whose papers their names appeared. They were in fact unknowing nominees whose names were used by the Wisotskys. After they were subpoenaed to the federal grand jury, Robert Barkow called Mrs. Bracco and said, "My people know they have wronged you they are sorry about it. They want to make up for it. Contact any of these three attorneys, they're waiting for your call. I will give you their names. We will put you up in the best hotels and consider it a vacation. My people have been wrong, they know they've wronged. You'll be well compensated for it. Take the corporations you're a,rich person.
The Wisotskys were not content with attempting to prevent individuals from testifying against them before the Grand Jury. On August 25, 1981, Special Agent Donald Burde received a telephone call from the Wisotsky's accountant who requested Burde come to his office, "alone and unwired." During that one-on-one meeting, the accountant offered Burde a $25,000 bribe on behalf of the Wisotskys to kill the criminal tax investigation he was conducting about them.
The evidence in this investigation revealed that the Wisotskys failed to report substantial amounts of income skimmed from the vast peep machine operation they controlled since April 1976.
At this writing, the Miami Strike Force of the United States Department of Justice's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section remains actively involved in the prosecution of individuals charged with violations of federal law as a result of MIPORN. The most recent prosecution resulted in the conviction of Norman Arno on charges of conspiracy and interstate transportation of obscene material. Arno was sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay a $30,000 fine.
The MIPORN investigation has yielded substantial evidence of organized crime involvement in the nationwide distribution of pornographic material, and serves as an example of effective utilization of law enforcement resources to combat the trade in obscenity.
MAGLOCLEN is one of six federally funded Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS program). These systems are administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, United States Department of Justice, and received nine point nine million dollars ($9,900,000) from Congress to fund fiscal 1986 operations. These systems cover the nation, providing support services to local, state, provincial and federal agencies investigating major criminal conspiracies. They serve over one hundred fifty thousand sworn employees in about two thousand departments. Through 1984, the projects supported cases which resulted in the seizure or recovery of nearly two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) worth of narcotics, currency and other property.
MAGLOCLEN and its sister projects provide services to their members including access to a computerized data base on major criminals, training, investigative equipment on loan, funding for undercover operations, publications, referrals and the analysis of criminal information.
It is within the context of the latter service -- the analysis of criminal information -- that I appear before you today. One of my responsibilities at MAGLOCLEN is the work of the Analytical Unit. I developed that unit and have been responsible for its output since June of 1981.
In that capacity, I supervise analytical work, complete selected analytical products each year and provide both basic and advanced analytical training to law enforcement officers throughout our region.
In addition, I am currently co-editing the first textbook on analysis, which will be published during 1986. And, I am a Director of the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, otherwise known as IALEIA, the professional organization for analysts. That organization recognized MAGLOCLEN's work during 1985 as making the "most significant progress in utilizing intelligence analytical techniques in support of law enforcement objectives."
Law enforcement analysis is the- compilation, summarization and presentation of criminal data in a form which can be understood by non-analysts. The products of such an analysis can include written reports, charts, matrices and listings which accurately convey the data and from which the meaning of the data can be derived.
MAGLOCLEN chose pornography as one of its six criminal targets when it first began, in 1981. From the onset, we were interested in the white collar crime potential which the pornography industry affords to its participants.
There were several reasons we thought white collar crime might be in evidence. Pornography and sexual aids are sold primarily for cash. Goods are sold at an enormous markup over production costs. The market for these products is large, yet relatively covert. Under these circumstances, it appeared to us that there was an atmosphere conducive to profit skimming, monopolization, using paper corporate fronts to hide actual interests, and tax evasion. Subsequent indictments alleged all of these, and more, as being perpetrated in one conspiracy which was headed by Reuben Sturman.
The analytical report titled "Reuben Sturman's Pornography Empire" included four charts, a written summary and a listing of all individuals and entities included in the charts. This work was completed in September of 1985 at the request of the Cleveland Police Department.
The report utilizes information provided by law enforcement agencies in the form of investigative reports, published documents and legal filings. It should be noted that MAGLOCLEN and the other RISS projects do not investigate cases in an operational manner, but gather data from line police agencies to perform information sharing and analytical services.
The efforts of the Internal Revenue Service and many other local and federal agencies must be commended. The paper trails and documents which they had to follow to complete such a case required a tremendous effort.
This analysis updated previous work done by MAGLOCLEN in 1984. The new material combined with previously held data as the indictment of Sturman in the case U. S. VS REUBEN STURMAN, filed June 27, 1985 and investigative data provided by agencies.
In summary, it has been alleged that Sturman has financial control of nearly two hundred businesses in nineteen states, one Canadian province and six foreign countries. That data has been transposed on to three charts which, if I may, I would like to briefly explain.
The first two charts relate to Sturman's associations. with businesses and individuals. The first chart is entitled "STURMAN ASSOCIATES". Associates are defined as either business associates, indicted or non-indicted co-conspirators, or both.
Sixty-five individuals are named in this chart as being associates of Reuben Sturman. Nearly ninety percent of these individuals have been named in a lawsuit with Sturman. Eight were named in suits against Sturman in both 1982 and 198-5. The primary associates appear on the left side of the chart. They include Ronald Braverman, James Olsafsky, Melvin Kaminsky, Marjorie Rollins, Scott A. Dormen, Paula Lawrence, Ralph L. Levine, Edward Seltzer and David Sturman.
The second chart shows "STURMAN BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS." It breaks down one hundred and ninety six businesses into eight categories and shows their association to Sturman.. Those categories include:
These companies stretch, geographically, from Massachusetts to California, from Michigan to Florida. The states which include the most known Sturman-associated businesses are:
Ohio - 35 businesses
California - 24 businesses
Illinois - 15 businesses
Pennsylvania - 14 businesses
Michigan- 13 businesses
Maryland - 11 businesses
New Jersey - 10 businesses
These seven states account for sixty-two percent, or almost two-thirds, of all known locations of Sturman businesses.
Outside of the United States, Sturman related businesses have been found in the province of Ontario, in Canada (which is also, by the way, part of MAGLOCLEN's network), in Great Britain, Panama, Liberia, the Netherlands, and Lichtenstein. A sixth foreign country, Switzerland, enters the picture through bank accounts established for several Sturman associates and some of these foreign corporations in Swiss banks.
Chart three shows "TRANSFERS AMONG BUSINESSES ASSOCIATED WITH REUBEN STURMAN."
To the left on this chart, financial transactions are depicted involving INTERNATIONAL BANCORPEST, UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK offices in New York and London. On June 22, 1978 GLOBAL FILM DISTRIBUTORS ESTABLISHMENT, a Lichtenstein company, transferred fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to a BANCORPEST office in New York.
The following day, SICORAN ESTABLISHMENT, another Lichtenstein corporation, transferred fifty nine thousand four hundred dollars ($59,400) to the New York office of BANCORPEST.
Two weeks later, on July 2, a check was written from BANCORPEST to NORTHERN PROPERTIES in the amount of fifty nine thousand three hundred dollars ($59,300). NORTHERN PROPERTIES is a Cleveland, Ohio, company alleged to be owned by WILSON & COMPANY as nominee for Sturman. The president of the company was Charles King and the vice president was Marjorie Rollins, long time personal secretary to Sturman.
On July 28, 1978, NORTHERN PROPERTIES paid sixty-three thousand eight hundred dollars ($83,800) to the Cleveland Federal Savings bank for the purchase of 3021 Attleboro Road, Shaker Heights Ohio, the personal residence of Reuben Sturman. NORTHERN PROPERTIES and Sturman further executed a mortgage for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($130,000) for the property also on that date.
Between September 1975 and July of 1978, Sturman associates deposited three hundred and eleven thousand dollars ($31,000) in cash into the INTERNATIONAL BANCORPEST, UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK office in London, England.
Ronald Braverman, using the name of "John Hastings," delivered ninety five thousand dollars ($95,000) in U.S. currency to this bank on September 30, 1975. On May 8, 1978, he used the name "John Hayes" and delivered eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) in currency to this branch of the bank.
Edward Seltzer, another Sturman associate, was also a courier. Using the name "Morton Weiss," Seltzer delivered one hundred fifteen thousand dollars ($115,000) in currency to the London office of the UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK on April 5, 1978. And, on July 19 of that year, using the name of "Ralph Seltzer," he delivered eighty three thousand dollars ($83,000) in currency to the bank branch. In total, four hundred twenty thousand and four hundred dollars ($420,400) was shown as transferred or deposited into this bank by Sturman associates.
During 1977, NORTHERN PROPERTIES was again used to purchase property for the Sturmans. On April 1, 1977, David Sturman and NORTHERN agreed to buy a single family home at 12908 Westchester Trail, Chesterland, Ohio, for ninety three thousand dollars ($93,000).
On April 27, 1977, NORTHERN, Reuben Sturman and David Sturman executed a mortgage note for the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), presumably for the house on Westchester Trail. On June 17, 1977, forty three thousand four hundred and fifty dollars ($43,450) was wire transferred from FABRICORA ESTABLISHMENT, alleged to be a Sturman corporate front, to NORTHERN PROPERTIES. FABRICORA is a Panama corporation begun in 1975 by Swiss attorney Jorg Haemmerli.
FABRICORA was also used, it is seen on the chart, to transfer funds into a United Kingdom corporation, STONEREALM, LTD. On August 9, 1979, FABRICORA transferred eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) to STONEREALM.
STONEREALM was incorporated on May 10, 1975. Less than one month later, Ronald Braverman, long time employee and associate of Reubenn Sturman, applied to transfer a total of fifty thousand pounds (L50,000) into STONEREALM.
Forty five thousand (45,000) was to be a loan and five thousand pounds (L5,000) was listed as an investment. STONEREALM's 1977 corporate filing showed Braverman as owning fifty percent of the company's stock.
STONEREALM also received financial support from a third Sturman related source -- the Societe Financiere et Commerciale, S.A., a Liberian corporation. On December 5, 1978, the Societe transferred sixty thousand dollars ($80,000) to Barclay's Bank in London for credit to STONEREALM's account. And later, on April 17, 1980, Reuben Sturman, using the alias of "Robert Stern," issued a check to STONEREALM from the SOCIETE for fifty five thousand dollars ($55,000).
In total, the indictment documented STONEREALM's receipt of one hundred ninety five thousand dollars ($195,000) plus fifty thousand pounds (L50,000) from Sturman related entities.
The SOCIETE FINANCIERE ET COMMERCIALE was incorporated in 1978 by three individuals who then transferred their shares of stock to David A. Sturman, Reuben Sturman's son and business associate. When the corporation's Swiss bank account was opened, David A. Sturman, Ronald Braverman and "Robert Stern" (Reubeg Sturman) were signators.
On August 28, 1979, a five hundred thousand dollar ($500,000) check from the Weissbard & Fields Trust account in Washington, D.C. was deposited into the SOCIETE account.
On September 12, 1979, two cashier's checks written on the Superior Savings Association in Cleveland totalling one hundred and nine thousand dollars ($109,000) were deposited in the Swiss SOCIETE account.
Between November 8, 1980, and January 7, 1981, seven checks totalling thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000) and signed by "Robert Stern" were deposited into the account. Most were written on accounts in two Ohio savings banks.
The total of deposits shown as going to the SOCIETE account were six hundred forty four thousand dollars ($644,000). On the debit side, in addition to its support of Braverman's STONEREALM, SOCIETE funneled dollars to several businesses including MARCHE MANUFACTURING in North Hollywood, California. MARCHE, also known as DOC JOHNSON'S or LOVELAY Co., specializes in sexual paraphernalia. It was named as a co-defendant in the 1982 lawsuit against Sturman and his companies. A check for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) was written on the SOCIETE account for MARCHE on September 7, 1978.
The SOCIETE's Swiss account also showed six transfers of funds to "JOE P. ENTERPRISES" totalling four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000). These transfers occurred between June 15, 1981 and March 12, 1982. The location and identity of JOE P. ENTERPRISES was not revealed in the indictment. This company, however, also received a check for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) from MASGRO FILM INTERNATIONAL on October 7, 1981. MASGRO is a Panamanian company incorporated during 1975.
Additionally, on September 8, 1981, "Robert Stern" signed two checks totalling nineteen thousand nine hundred and ninety seven dollars ($19,997) which were deposited in the MASGRO Swiss bank account.
The inference which can be drawn from these transfers is that there was an intent to cover audit trails, launder funds and hide participation by Sturman and his cohorts in various transactions and companies.
Yet these examples form only a portion of the questionable activities uncovered to date by local, state and federal investigators in relation to Sturman corporations. The IRS alleges that for the five years between 1978 and 1982, Sturman had a personal income of three million three hundred ninety nine thousand seven hundred and thirty four dollars ($3,399,734), or an average income of six hundred seventy nine thousand, nine• hundred and forty six dollars and eighty cents ($879,948.80) per year.
Over that same period, he claimed an income of only three hundred sixty three thousand six hundred and nine dollars ($383,809), which represents about ten point five percent (10.5%) of his total income as uncovered by IRS. During those years, he paid one hundred thirty seven thousand seven hundred and forty five dollars ($137,745) in income taxes. The IRS contends that he evaded over ono point six million dollars ($1,600,000) in taxes.
And, this figure could well be just the tip of the iceberg. If his personal taxes were underreported, what of his corporate tax liabilities for dozens of businesses? Indeed, it may take a platoon of investigators, analysts and accountants to find the ?bottom line' in Sturman's business dealings.
But the Sturman case has import beyond his personal empire or his tax bill. Through his manipulations, we can see how white collar crime can work in the pornography industry and in other settings. The analytical product "REUBEN STURMAN'S PORNOGRAPHY EMPIRE" was not completed to merely summarize a complicated case. It was done to show law enforcement investigators what types of white collar criminal activity has occurred and may recur.
Further, it was done to disseminate to law enforcement agencies the identification data of individuals and entities included in the analysis. By having this data, law enforcement agencies may be able to ascertain the connections between their local pornography industry and this massive conspiracy.
Analysis and information sharing are the bases of the RISS projects. We believe that collecting, compiling, analyzing and sharing this type of information will make law enforcement, nationwide, more effective in their anti-crime efforts. Our projects were designed and funded to do this work and, with the support of the Congress, we will continue to do so.
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to testify at these hearings.
The Annual Report to the Legislature
Organized Crime in California 1984
John K. Van De Kamp, Attorney General
California Department of Justice
4949 Broadway
Sacremento, California
In early 1970, elements of the Colombo, Bonanno, Gambino, and DeCavalcante crime families moved from the East and established pornography operations in California.
During the mid-1970's, they engaged in extortion and violence in an attempt to gain control over independent pornographers in California. The Southern California Crime Family was also involved in this activity (see FOREX, page 25). Organized crime elements are now established in national distribution and are involved in most aspects of the pornography business. They continue to exert much influence over the pornography operation in California through hidden interests in this industry.
The arrival of home video cassette recorders on the market in 1979 was accompanied by a growing demand for adult video tapes. California pornographers, linked to Gambino, DeCavalcante, Luchese, and Colombo organized crime families, have entered this market through companies that produce, duplicate, distribute, and sell adult video tapes.
Introduced into the Record of Hearings Before:
New York Select Committee on Crime
1001 State Office Building
270 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
July 26, 1982
Contents
This report constitutes a continuing law enforcement investigation. It is not to be distributed or disseminated unless express permission is first obtained from the respective agency(s). It is further directed that this report be safeguarded as with any other sensitive investigative file. This report has only been furnished to those agencies involved who have contributed to the information gathered.
In March, 1977, a meeting of the Combined Law Enforcement Intelligence Group (CLEIG) determined that there was a critical need for law enforcement agencies to discuss the growing nationwide problem of the pornography industry and to determine the extent to which organized crime controlled or influenced the industry. As a result of this meeting, the Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C., hosted a conference on June 30, 1977, to examine this problem.
The following goals were established by the conference's participants: 1. Identify the major producers and/or distributors of pornographic material. 2. Identify organized crime figures who are involved in the pornography industry. 3. Establish liaison between local, state and federal law enforcement agencies for the exchange of information concerning organized crime end the pornography industry. 4. Establish a central point where all information will be forwarded for correlation, analysis and eventual dissemination to all participating agencies.
Each participant supplied documented information on pornography operations in their respective jurisdiction. This material identified the major producers and/or distributors of pornographic material and their corporate structures.
This information provides an in-depth picture of pornography operations from the national to the local level. Since the pornography industry is constantly undergoing corporate changes, the contents of this report are to be regarded as investigative leads. Corrections and updating of the material should be completed by the recipient agency.
Although the information was collated and analyzed by the organized Crime Branch, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C., this report obviously would not have been possible without the cooperation of the following law enforcement agencies:
ARIZONA:
Phoenix Police Department, PhoenixCALIFORNIA:
California Department of Justice, Sacramento
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
San Francisco Police Department, San FranciscoCANADA:
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceDELAWARE:
Delaware State Police, OdessaDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, Washington Field Office
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington Field Office
Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.
United States Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C.
United States Customs, Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C.FLORIDA:
Dade County Public Safety Department, Miami
Florida Department of Criminal Law Enforcement, Tallahassee
Fort Lauderdale Police Department, Fort Lauderdale
Tampa Police Department, Tampa
Titusville Police Department, TitusvilleGEORGIA:
Athens Police Department, Athens
Atlanta Police Department, Atlanta
Columbus Police Department, Columbus
Georgia Bureau of Investigation, AtlantaLOUISIANA:
New Orleans Police Department, New OrleansMARYLAND:
Anne Arundel County Police Department, Millersville
Baltimore City Police Department, Baltimore
Howard County Police Department, Annapolis
Maryland State Police, Pikesville
Montgomery County Police Department, Rockville
Ocean City Police Department, Ocean City
Prince George's County Police Department, ForestvilleMASSACHUSETTS:
Boston Police Department, Boston
Massachusetts State Police, Boston
Springfield Police Department, Springfield
MICHIGAN:
Lansing Police Department, Lansing
Michigan Department of the Attorney General, Lansing
Wayne County Sheriff's Department, DetroitMINNESOTA:
Minneapolis Police Department, MinneapolisMISSOURI:
Saint Louis Metropolitan Police, St. LouisNEW HAMPSHIRE:
Manchester Police Department, ManchesterNEW JERSEY
New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, Trenton
New Jersey State Police, West TrentonNEW YORK:
Buffalo Police Department, Buffalo
New York City Police Department, New York City
New York State Police, Albany
New York State Select Committee on Crime, New York CityNORTH CAROLINA:
Fayettesville Police Department, Fayettesville
Greensboro Police Department, Greensboro
North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, RaleighOHIO:
Cleveland Police Department, Cleveland
Dayton Police Department, DaytonPENNSYLVANIA:
Pennsylvania Crime Commission, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania State Police, Harrisburg
Philadelphia Police Department, PhiladelphiaVIRGINIA:
Alexandria Police Department, Alexandria
Arlington County Police Department, Arlington
Fairfax County Police Department, Fairfax
Richmond Police Department, Richmond
Virginia State Police, RichmondWASHINGTON:
Seattle Police Department, Seattle Washington State Patrol, Seattle
During the course of this investigation, efforts of the contributing law enforcement agencies have led to the identification of nationwide pornography distributors. The following pages will depict the national distribution flow of pornographic material, the major distributors at the interstate level and the corporate organizational profiles of these major distributors. Information has been derived from corporate records, occupancy permits, retail sales applications, state taxation assessments, etc. Also included are past indictments and/or convictions of individuals involved in the pornography industry.
Before addressing the current status 'of court rulings involving the issue of pornography, it is necessary to provide a brief background regarding the philosophical and historical evolution of our present law. It should be pointed out that this portion of the report is designed to provide a workable insight for the average law enforcement officer into the historical development of laws governing pornography.
The crime of creating or distributing "obscene" sexual materials is of relatively recent origin in American law. Royal censorship began in England in 1531 through a licensing system under secular authority with ecclesiastics as licensers established by Henry VIII. English censorship at that time Was not directed toward sexual content; but rather, it was directed against seditious and heretical works. There was a brief period between 1605 and 1660 in which the strong influence of Puritanism in England led to authorization of proceedings against the use of profanity by actors on stage. However, after the Restoration in 1660, licensing was again limited to suppressing sedition and heresy in printed works.
The first case which demonstrated that the common law courts would, even in the absence of a statute, penalize conduct which is grossly offensive to the public occurred in 1663 in the case of King v. Sedley. Sir Charles Sedley and two friends became drunk at a tavern. They climbed to the balcony of the tavern and removed their clothes. Sedley gave a speech which included profanities. He also poured bottles of urine on his audience and a riot ensued. Although the case did not concern the distribution of sexual materials, it involved both a physical assault j upon others and the public broadcasting of profanity and nudity upon unwilling recipients. Sedley was given a substantial fine and committed to jail for a week. This case was subsequently deemed an obscenity case when the issues involved were later cited in rulings concerning obscenity.
In 1695, when the Licensing Act expired, Parliament declined to renew it. This apparently was not because Parliament disapproved of the practice of licensing; but rather because it considered the act unenforceable. The end of the licensing System made it likely that some new legal controls over writings would develop, at least for areas such as libel which were suddenly, for the most part, unregulated. Though the licensers had not directed their attention toward obscenity, the existence of a licensing plan probably had some inhibiting effect on pornographic publications. In any case, the demise of the system, coupled with the spread of literacy and the increased popularity of reading, gradually led to a new class of writers. The upper classes became concerned about the possible effects of these writings. It is in this setting that the effort was made to control obscenity through the common law courts.
In 1708, in the case of Queen v. Read, a prosecution was instituted against a book entitled "The Fifteen Plagues of a Maidenhead". Read was acquitted when the court ruled "a crime that shakes religion, as profaneness on the stage, etc., is indictable; but writing an obscene book, as that entitled, ?The Fifteen Plagues of a Maidenhead', is not indictable, but punishable only in the spiritual court". This case asserted that obscenity, if it was an offense at all, was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. It was not an offense at common law and all penalties imposed were spiritual ones.
Not only obscenity but sex offenses in general had traditionally been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Adultery and fornication, which were forbidden by the Bible, were civilly punished for the first time under the theocratic government of Cromwell, but during the Restoration they again fell under the exclusive control of the ecclesiastical authorities.
The next case of significance was the 1727 Curl case. Edmund Curl was prosecuted for "obscene libel" for publishing a book entitled "Venus in Cloister" or "The Nun in her Smock". The judges were troubled by the Read decision and by the fact that common law had not recognized as crimes acts which did not outright attack the church, government or tend to a breach of the peace. Curl's book, while not in direct violation of these issues, did cause an embarrassment of the Church by discussing sex of its members. Counsel for Curl attempted to use the Read case to have the indictment quashed; but the Attorney General, while admitting the lack of precedent for his position, argued that acts should be considered disruptive of the King's peace and therefore forbidden by common law. The government argued that acts which corrupt the morality of the publicc at large are "against the peace of the King's" even though acts of immorality that effect only individuals, such as fornication, are not- public offenses punishable by common law.
The court found precedent for the conviction of Curl in the Sedley case by saying that Sedley was not distinguishable because of the showering of the public with urine and because of the violence which had provoked. The court reasoned that the more important part of Sedley's offense was his nakedness. The court held it to be an offense properly within its jurisdiction, for it said that religion was part of common law; and therefore, whatever is an offense against religion is evidently an offense against common law. They reasoned that morality is the fundamental part of religion; and therefore, whatever strikes against religion must for the same reason be an offense against common law. The Taylor case, cited as an authority for the proposition that offenses against morality are common law offenses, was a case where the defendant had been convicted for calling Christ a bastard and a whoremonger and because he called religion a cheat.
Curl's case established that a person could be punished by common law as a violator of the King's peace (although no force or threat of violence was involved in the action). As illustrated earlier, the law before Curl punished authors of publications that were seditious or heretical or which tended to provoke an actual breach of peace. Curl added to the category of punishable works those which directly discredited established religion or its servants in written form.
Eighteenth century legal writers treated the offense of obscene libel created by Curl as an offense against God. The obscenity cases which followed Curl similarly limited themselves to sexual material in the context of anti-religious works. In fact, material often referred to today as hardcore pornography circulated quite freely, because of the lack of anti-religious content.
A final case that sheds some light on the development of common law offense of obscenity is the 1809 case of Rex v Crunden. In that case the defendant was charged with bathing nude in the sight of homes. The court found the defendant guilty of the crime charged but freed him since this was "the first prosecution, of this sort in modern times". Until then, immorality and immodesty, apart from anti-religious behavior or seditious behavior or behavior provoking violence, had not been punished.
During this period "guardians" of public morals made their appearance and stimulated governments to suppress obscene writings. It was within this framework that the Society for the Suppression of Vice was founded in England in 1802.
During the 19th century obscenity laws were given content in England. Near the beginning of the century, common law had to a point where it was being applied to prohibit purely sexual works which did not attack or libel religious institutions. This practice led to the first obscenity legislation in England and was incorporated in Vagrancy Act of 1824. The act prohibited exposing an obscene book or print in public places. In 1857 the Lord Campbell's Act was passed and it prohibited the dissemination of obscenity. This act permitted attacks on material that currently was considered to have a literary value.
A definition of obscenity was formulated in 1868 in Queen v. Hicklin. The case involved an anti-religious pamphlet entitled "The Confessional Unmasked", showing the depravity of the Roman priesthood, the iniquity of the confessional and the questions put to females in confession. A local magistrate, Justice Benjamin Hicklin, ordered the pamphlet seized and destroyed; although about half of the pamphlet was argumentative and not obscene. In Magistrate Hicklin's view, the publication discussed intercourse and fellatio among other topics. Therefore, it rendered the entire work taboo. Although Hicklin's action was reversed by an intermediate court, but the case was appealed, and in 1868 the Chief Justice, Sir Alexander Cockburn, reinstated Hicklin's orders. In doing so, a test of obscenity was framed in law.
The test of obscenity laid down by the court did not, however, limit itself to the anti-religious aspect; instead, a general test of obscenity was adopted. .Chief Justice Cockburn did not base the existence of obscenity on the intention of the authors. Instead, he said that the test of obscenity was whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity was to deprave and corrupt minds which are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands the publication may fall. The test.of morality was what a father could read aloud in his own home.
There were many successful prosecutions of pornography and the law was also invoked against works of literary merit and works with a social or moral purpose. In addition to prosecutions, other sanctions were also used. (Seizure of books by the post office, customs officials, or police; and their subsequent destruction).
The law was subject to continuous attack, because for it was felt that it often compelled authors to falsify social realities. The law was also attacked for reducing literary standards to the level of what was morally proper for the young. The applicatio, of the law by judges in specific cases was also attacked, because judges permitted prosecutions on the basis of isolated passages. Judges also refused to permit evidence of the author's intent or purpose or his literary reputation, or testimony of recognized literary critics. The law was also attacked because the prosecutions were often directed against book material sellers who were indifferent to the fate of the attacked.
In the United States "obscenity" never had strong roots as a common law offense. The reasons offered are that early colonists were unconcerned with depiction of sex largely because there was little or none in circulation. The life of a typical colonist during this period was one of hard physical labor. Therefore, the general disinterest in pornography may be attributable to a lack of leisure time. In the Massachusetts colony a fundamental interest was to uphold the religious faith. From the beginning of its existence, the colonial authorities freely dispensed punishment for such religious crimes as swearing and working on Sunday, and until the late 1600's, punishment for blasphemy included the death penalty.
As in England, censorship in America was directed toward antireligious works rather than sexual material. A statute passed in Massachusetts in 1711 read that "evil communication, wicked, profane, impure, filthy and obscene songs, composures, writings or prints do corrupt the mind and are incentives to all manner of impieties and debaucheries, more especially when digested, composed or uttered in imitation or in mimicking or preaching, or any other part of divine worship". Further, the law, prohibited the "composing, writing, printing, or publishing of any filthy, obscene or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon, in imitation of preaching, or any other part of divine worship". This statute, although closely related to antireligious material, was applicable to solely sexual material as well. There are, however, no recorded prosecutions under the Massachusetts statute until the 1821 "Fanny Hill" case.
in 1821, Massachusetts prosecuted the first case involving an illustrated book "Fanny Hill". Prosecution of the case, Commonwealth v. Holmes, was brought against the publisher, Peter Holmes, and resulted in his conviction based upon an illustration in the book and the text. This prosecution involved common law because the illustrations were not prohibited by the statute.
The first obscenity case in the United States arose in 1815 in Pennsylvania, where there was no obscenity statute in existence. The case, Commonwealth v. Sharpless, involved the showing of a picture movie, although not in public for profit, charged as being "lewd, wicked, scandalous, infamous, and obscene, representing a man in an obscene, impudent, and indecent, posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth, and other citizens of this commonwealth, to the evil example of all others in like case offending, and against the place and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." The indictment also charged that defendants were guilty of "designing, contriving and intending the morals, as well of youth and other citizens of this commonwealth, to debauch and corrupt, and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires." The defendants argued, as had Read and Curl, that they could not be convicted of such a crime without any statute prohibiting their conduct. The court found, however, that the defendants had violated public decency and thereby committed a legal offense. The court relied on the Sedley case in reaching its conclusion that acts of public indecency were indictable under common law.
Henceforth, it was legislature rather than common law court decisions that headed the anti-obscenity movement in this country. In 1821, the State of Vermont passed the first obscenity statute in the United States., In 1834, Connecticut followed with a statute and in 1835, Massachusetts amended its colonial law to extend the ban on obscenity to importation and distribution and included prints, pictures, figures and descriptions. The updated statute was not as religiously affiliated as the old one and a test of obscenity was included for the first time. This test was whether the work is "manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth."
The first federal anti-obscenity statute was passed in 1842. It was a customs law aimed at the narrow problem of importing obscene material. The law directed the seizure and destruction "of all indecent and obscene prints, painting, lithographs, engravings and transparencies"; and like the English customs statute, was apparently aimed at the French postcard trade.
In 1868, Anthony Comstock, a grocery store clerk in New York City, took it upon himself to investigate and report to prosecutors violations of the recently enacted legislation prohibiting the dissemination of obscene literature. Comstock was supported by community's Protestant leaders and members of the Young Men's Christian Association. Both groups had supported the creation of obscenity legislation. In 1873 the Committee for the Suppression of Vice was created in New York City. Comstock was the committee's chief Washington lobbyist and as a result of Comstock's efforts, Congress broadened the 1865 Federal Mail Act to include pornography.
By the end of the 19th century, at least 30 states had some form of prohibition on the dissemination of "obscene" materials. The definition of "obscene," used in federal and states prohibition on the dissemination of obscene materials was the definition reached in the Queen v. Hicklin case in 1868. This definition remained in force until a 1957 decision by the United States Supreme Court set the pattern under which we enforce obscenity matters today. Before addressing this particular decision, a brief presentation of case law development affecting the area of censorship is in order.
In the 1920's a case came before the Supreme Court involving measures designed to restrict freedom of publication. A weekly "hate sheet" that regularly excoriated the Jews was being turned out in Minneapolis by J.M. Near. The case dealt with the right of the municipal officials to suppress the publication. The high court, in a five to four decision, ruled against all prior restraints which. had been imposed on the paper.
New York had a statute directed against sadistic literature, which read as follows: "It is a misdemeanor to sell any publication principally made up of criminal news, police reports, or accounts of criminal deeds, or pictures or stories of deeds of bloodshed, lust or crime". In-1941 Murray Winters was found guilty of possessing more than two thousand copies of a magazine titled "Headquarters Detectives". The magazine featured articles with titles such as "Bargains in Bodies", "Girl Slave to a Love Cult" and "Girls Reformatory." In 1948 the Supreme Court, in a six to three decision, reversed the conviction ruling that restrictions imposed on freedom of expression were void if the law was vague and-uncertain.
The Esquire magazine of the 1940's was similar to today's Playboy. Sex tended to dominate a number of its stories and articles; however, it was not deemed obscene. The Postmaster General reasoned that second class mailing privileges were intended by Congress to be provided for magazines "published for the dissemination of information of a public character, or devoted to literature, the sciences, arts or some special industry." With this thought in mind the Postmaster General suspended Esquire's second class mailing privileges. The impact of the high court's ruling was to declare that an item was not censorable solely because it failed to "contribute to the public Good and the public welfare."
In 1957 the Supreme Court reversed the Michigan conviction of a book distributor, Alfred E.. Butler, who had been convicted of selling a novel titled "Devil Rides Outside". The book detailed the moral story of a young man's struggle against lust while staying in a French monastary. The Michigan court ruled that the book violated a state statute that had barred sales to the general public of books "containing obscene, immoral, lewd or lascivious language." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: "The State insists that, by thus quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown man and women in order to shield juvenile innocence, it is exercising its power to promote the general welfare. Surely, this is to burn the house to roast the pig. We have before us legislation not reasonably restricted to the evil with which it is said to deal. The incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading what is fit for children."
In Roth v. United States, 35 U.S. 476 (1957), the defendant, who published and sold books, was charged with violation of the federal obscenity statute. In a companion case, Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the defendant, Alberts, conducted a mail order business in the State of California. He was also charged with.violation of the State's obscenity laws for selling obscene, lewd, and indecent books. For the first time a constitutional issue involving the First and Fourteenth Amendments was raised. The decision centered on whether these obscenity laws violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech, and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant argued that the wording of the respective statutes did not provide reasonable definite standards of guilt so that people could understand and conform their conduct to the requirements of the laws.
The Court held that the statutes were constitutional; and that obscenity laws designed to protect the morals of the people do not infringe on the area of protected speech or expression under the First Amendment. Also, that the wording of the statutes gave adequate warning of the types of conduct which was prohibited.
The Roth formulation, at first glance, may not seem difficult. The five Justices declared that if "to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest" the matter. was obscene. Thus, the Court established the broad rule that obscenity was not constitutionally protected. However, in later case the problem become one of defining the terms: "average person," "community standards," "prurient interests" and "dominant theme."
Nine years later in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), the Court held: "The Supreme Judicial Court erred, in holding that a book need not be *unqualifiedly worthless before it can be deemed obscene'. A book cannot be proscribed unless it is found to be utterly without redeeming social value." While Roth presumed "obscenity" to be "utterly without redeeming social value," Memoirs required that to prove obscenity it must be affirmatively established that the material is "utterly without redeeming social value." Therefore, even as they repeated the words of the Roth decision, the Memoirs plurality produced a drastically altered test that called on the prosecution to prove that the material was "utterly without redeeming social value" a burden extremely difficult to discharge under our standards of proof.
In the case of Paris Adult Theater v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973), the Court said that even though obscene materials are shown' only to consenting adults, the state has a right to challenge such materials and, if found to be offensive, to prevent their sale and distribution. The United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973) case was decided the same day the Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to prevent obscene material from entering the stream of commerce. The Court held that the 1969 Stanley case, which protected the right of people to keep obscene materials in the privacy of their homes, did not extend beyond the home. Therefore, although a person can have such material at home, it appears he or she could have difficulty transporting it there. Another significant 1973 case dealing with the definition of obscenity was Kaplan v. California, 413 U.5. 115 (1973). The Court simply said that books without pictures can be obscene.
The most important of the 1973 decisions was the Miller case, which resulted in the Court's setting guidelines for the term "obscenity." In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) the Court stated: "The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court set forth the following examples of what a state statute could define for regulation under part (b) of the standard set forth above: (a) patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, and (b) patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions and lewd exhibition of the genitals.
Also, similar federal guidelines were set down in the United States v. 12 200 Ft. Reels of Super 8mm Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973). The Court stated that for purposes of the federal statutes the court was prepared to construe prong (b) of the test to encompass the conduct set forth as examples in the miller case. Therefore, a proper statement of the test for obscenity in federal cases would be as follows: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct including, but not limited to, representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, or representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, or lewd exhibition of the genitals, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The most recent Supreme Court decision regarding obscenity was the William Pinkus, dba "Rosslyn News Company" and Kamera v. United States decided on May 23, 1978. This case established guidelines for a definition of the "community" by whose standards obscenity was to be judged, the court held that children are not to be included as part of the "community" as that term relates to the "obscene materials" proscribed by 18 U.S.C. S1461, and hence it was error to instruct the jury that children are part of the relevant community. A jury conscientiously striving to define such community, the "average person" by whose standards obscenity is to be judged, might very well reach a much lower "average" when children are part of that equation than it would if it restricted its consideration to the effect of allegedly obscene materials on adults. However, inclusi