Producer Arrested for Allegedly Filming 17 Year Old

dirty_dI have a feeling this still-developing story may end up being the most talked about of 2010. It’s really got everything – lies, blackmail, secret identities, arrests, and an underage girl.

The classy gentleman pictured to the left is Michael Storm, aka Dirty D. He is being accused of knowingly filming a scene with a minor. Specifically “two counts of the promotion of a sexual performance of a child, two counts of the use of a child in a sexual performance and one count of illegal computer pornography, which refers to the streaming of underage content.”

Her Story
The accusations are being made by a girl who usually goes by the name Kelsey Cummings (she has several aliases). Her story is that she was contacted by Dirty D via her account on a modeling website and was asked to do a porn scene. She told him she was 17, but he said it wasn’t a problem because she’s married (to a porn performer, in fact). She says okay, procures an ID from another woman who looks nothing like her, and shoots a scene on a Sybian.

Where things go downhill is when she’s taken to an adult video store to shoot a gloryhole scene and realizes that the men she’s servicing are random, untested guys off the street. She tries to leave, Dirty D tells her she cant, eventually her husband picks her up.

Then, a few months ago, Kelsey is contacted via email by a person who claims to have evidence that she used a fake ID to appear in porn and is threatening to turn her in to the police if she doesn’t shoot for them for low pay.

His Story
Unsurprisingly, Dirty D vehemently denies knowing that Kelsey was under the legal age and accuses her of fabricating the entire story to hurt his business and perhaps the industry as a whole. His defense is that he never told her to use a fake ID and had no way to verify that the ID belonged to her. In fact, he found out about the accusations via an anonymous post on Craigslist.

Then What?
At some point, the Tampa police received an envelope with pictures of Kelsey performing sex acts and a tip that she was not 18 at the time. Search and arrest warrants were issued and carried out on 2 crew members and Dirty D’s house. He was at an industry trade show in Barcelona at the time and turned himself in when he returned to the country. At the moment, he’s out on $200,000 bond.

My Thoughts
While we don’t know what Dirty D knew when, we know for a fact that Kelsey willingly used a fake ID to do porn. Evidently, this is not illegal. I understand that we need to protect the children, but is a 17 year old a child in this case? If Dirty D did what he’s accused of, he is an asshole who deserves what he gets. But I’d argue that either way, Kelsey was fully aware of the legality and consequences of her actions and chose to ignore them – and that’s not okay either.

It’s also unclear who sent the envelope to the police, but my money’s on a Montana woman going by the name Brittany who, since last year, has been emailing every adult news site and posting on every adult message board she can find about the incident. She even set up a blog (that is now password protected) attempting to expose Dirty D as a criminal. How this woman came to know about this situation still hasn’t been revealed, but she seems to have an axe to grind and I have to wonder whether she’s ex-talent who was screwed over by Dirty D in the past.

Your Thoughts
I’m interested to hear what you guys think about this mess. Does either side’s story seem credible? Should Kelsey be punished for what she did? What’s up with this mystery lady in Montana? Share your opinions in the comments.

Tags: ,

24 Responses to “Producer Arrested for Allegedly Filming 17 Year Old”

  1. numbles Says:

    1. 17 is definitely no child.
    2. Noone “deserves what you get” in the USA because this countries judicial system is full of shit and rotten to the core. The fact that the US has the most imprisoned people per capita WORLDWIDE is enough evidence.
    3. I think Dirty D well get into prison anyway because she is a sweet little girl and he looks guilty which is usually enough evidence.

  2. garbman Says:

    With out knowing all the facts it a hard to say whats going to happen. I some what agree with numbles that 17 is not a child. Yet if it was my daughter and she was 17, I would have a different opinion. If a young woman has sex as a teenager and likes the experience she may indulge regardless of the circumstances. Theres alot of things that can come into play here. What her upbringing was like good or bad, which maybe questionable if she is in fact married to a porn star. I’m thinking Dirty D is probably not in a good situation here just because of the way the laws are written.
    Seventeen is a minor or child in most cases like this. Yet at seventeen or younger males and females in our society are comitting crimes. Murder, selling or providing drugs to other minors, sexting on cell phones etc.,and are tried as adults in some cases.
    Alison I’m thinking like you its a mess thats for sure. It will definately rock the boat in the porn industry thats for sure. I’m old enough to remember Traci Lords, and this is the first time to my knowledge or recollection that this has happened again. It will be interesting to watch this play out. My final thought though is Dirty D is most likely going to prison quess we will see.

  3. garbman Says:

    Forgot to say to the content people at VB stay away, very away from any content regarding this case.

  4. Bronty Says:

    Odd personal situation between three, willing individuals. I guarantee you the punishment will be well more severe than the crime. A judge should declare them irritating, put in restraining orders where needed, and tell them all to get lost.

  5. detritus Says:

    I can say this. Legally, 17 is a child. It doesn’t matter what you or I think. If she’s married (to a pornstar? really?) she can be considered an adult by the court, but not for porn. Period. There’s just no debate there. So if he actually filmed her (dirty d? really?) and that film is legit, then the only question is how much trouble he’s in. Credibility can be played out in court, mostly on the additional charges, or more likely a plea of some sort, for lesser sentencing, but the film is damning. He’ll likely do time depending on his record, be labeled a sex offender, and she’ll walk away, which sucks but that’s common. The other woman likely won’t matter here due to the warrant’s producing what has to be better evidence than photos, though I’d bet she’s being looked at also, specifically how she came to this info and knowledge. The other evidence from the warrant though is the case, and I’d bet they found more than this.

  6. Starryknight Says:

    I agree with detritis that legally Dirty D. is on the hook. Morally, Ms. Cummings may share the blame, but that is another story. Just as underage girls sometimes come on to older guys, the onus is on the guy to do the right thing. This is especially true for anyone involved in the Porn Industry where zealots are always looking for a reason to shut it down.
    A fake ID that looks nothing like the girl in question is not sufficient diligence by Dirty in establishing age. Whether or not Ms. Cummings tale that he knew her real age is true. Maybe the Industry should require actors to be 411 certified. Look at all of the trouble you have to go through to establish ID for a decent call girl( er or so I have been told).
    One look at Mr. D. tells me he is guilty of many things :).

  7. Goldbrook Says:

    Starryknight is right on — the onus is completely on the dude in this case to do the right thing. And Detritus is completely right about the legal implications.

    Once upon a time, I actually studied the sociology of such things at a fancy university and worked on a project that involved studying date rapes. What I learned is that most of the time women don’t lie about this stuff, and most of the time they are vilified for taking a stand. I don’t presume anything about the situation, but I can say what I think is *likely* the case.

    Let’s assume, for a moment, that Ms. Cummings knew *exactly* what she was doing at each point of this story, but that all of her story is factual and true.

    If you were Ms. Cummings, trying to get ahead in the porn industry, would you like to forced to take untested dicks through a hole in a wall?

    Even if Ms. Cummings is a complete idiot, an opportunist, and willingly consented to break the law by being filmed riding a sybian, you can’t really get around the fact that Dirty D seems to have gone way too far. Look, if Ms. Cummings gets an early break in porn (assuming this is what she sees her future as) with no negative consequences, I sort assume she is going to do it and not say anything.

    This is a bit like David Ortiz from the Red Sox — a guy who said he was 18 when he was really 14 or 15 (but had enough facial hair going to sustain the illusion) to get into major league baseball. Who is more in the wrong — the barely-teenager who lies to live their dream or the system and people who knowingly look the other way when it happens? In the case of Ortiz, though, everybody was happy until we saw a dude who was supposed to be 35 turn into a chubby old man coaching 1st base while supposedly an “active” player — and even then, most of us looked the other way.

    Doesn’t it seem like, had Dirty D simply done what he said he’d do, they both would have benefited? It is hard to me to believe, given a “gentleman’s agreement” between the two parties that was kept in good faith, that Ms. Cummings wouldn’t keep completely silent about it. Making these accusations is simply not as easy.

    There’s another possibility: That Ms. Cummings is simply cruel, and out to get Dirty D. That does happen — a little less than 1 times out of 50 — and when it does, it is truly tragic.

    But on the balance, we really owe it to ourselves to give the woman the benefit of the doubt in terms of the facts, and then make of the story what we will. In raw statistical terms, it is highly unlikely that she is lying or simply out to take down Dirty D.

    We forget, also, that character and actions don’t necessarily coincide. Ms. Cummings may not have a great character, Dirty D might be a wonderful person to his friends and loved ones. But what the hell does that have to do with being forced to have sex? If Ms. Cummings was forced to have sex, that’s rape. There just isn’t a question about it. If what Ms. Cummings says is true, then what Dirty D did is really, fundamentally, fucked up.

    It also is hard to imagine anyone trying to take on “the industry” by making such an accusation.

    One more thing… If anyone from the crew working that day is reading this: Please just tell the fucking truth. My own hunch, if you can’t tell, is that Dirty D is guilty as accused. But I’d like to think I’m fair-minded enough to accept he could be innocent. But we will not know unless people who know tell the truth, if only during trial.

    I know the issue of sexual violence from ton of angles — from the intensely personal to the academic. This knowledge has rarely affected my interest in porn, as long as lewd content in question doesn’t break the law or seem too exploitative. Fore whatever reason, this story could change that orientation for me. If what Ms. Cummings says is true, it will be hard for me to watch much porn for a while. That sort of bums me out, but it seems to me that isn’t nearly as important as whether Ms. Cummings is telling the truth.

    Personally, I don’t see why Ms. Cummings would lie — the risks seem far too great.

  8. jeff Says:

    Goldbrook, that is a confusing post there…You’re saying David Ortiz claimed he was 3-4 years older than he actually was?? because usually its the other way around and a Dominican kid who is supposedly 16 years old that might sign for Million$$, if they find out later he’s actually 19 y.o., then usually he becomes a non-prospect overnight and they try to rescind his contract…MLB has gone testing bone densities and checking teeth of Caribbean players to make sure they not lying about their ages….

    @Starryknight – your last line was hilarious, esp. the smiley:

    “One look at Mr. D. tells me he is guilty of many things :).”

  9. Papayaman1 Says:

    If stupidity was a crime I suspect that all the main players here would end up doing time and they would probably deserve it. However it isn’t. One suspects though that the idiotically named Dirty D will likely end up in the slammer if only because he has plainly cultivated a ridiculously sleazy persona. On the other hand if there is any truth in the allegations that he has knowingly using an under-age actress and been involved in forcing her to have sex with anonymous unchecked men, he really does deserve it.

  10. Strangepork Says:

    Honestly, tons of girls turn 18 every single day. You’d have to be both stupid and a total sleaze to knowingly film a 17 year old. Use somebody legal and/or just wait a few months.

  11. Boots Says:

    A couple of things strike me. The first is that I’m surprised her husband wasn’t present at the shoot. It was presumably her first porn shoot; I’d want to be there with my 17-year-old wife to make sure nothing went wrong, especially if I was a porn star myself. It sounds like she was alone, with no-one to monitor her interests except herself. If nothing else, wouldn’t her husband have advised her against getting into that situation? Take along a girl-friend if the husband can’t bear to watch (although, if that’s the case, why’s she doing it at all?).
    The second thing is that the blackmail threat doesn’t sound very credible. At least, not against her. If she was turned over to the police, she isn’t the one who would suffer. Any why bother with blackmail just to save some money on her fees? If I was going to blackmail someone I’d go for the director, who had a lot more to lose.
    Her account doesn’t sound very credible to me. If it’s true part of the shoot happened at a video store I guess that could be verified. Otherwise it seems established that Dirty D filmed an under-aged woman without doing due diligence so I guess he’s going to swing for that regardless.

  12. Bronty Says:

    I didn’t mean to come across as hopelessly naive, flippant, or lacking in empathy for what might be a crime with a victim. A trial is certainly in order. I was more making a comment about sentencing and jail, and how infrequently crimes don’t match up to what are the supposedly horrible conditions in prison. On a separate note.. Not an American (though living in America), I appreicate the detailed, and to me, illuminating posts about the legal system here. I wonder how this case would play out in say, Switzerland or perhaps in the EU, say France? Specifically, how will the moral dimension be interpreted? I’m only you’re typical, casual, news reader, but based on that, I sense huge gaps in how sexual matters (among others) are legally interpreted between cultures and countries.

  13. Bronty Says:

    To be more blunt, I sense the US legal system will take a more harsh view on the whole scenario, given that it is sexual in nature, compared to some other countries. Any whiff of coersion (or serious deception like the ‘gloryhole’ thing—icky in itself, but especially if no one was tested) and all bets are off, of course. Maybe I have been reading too much about ‘sexting’ and the ‘sex offender’ laws here that seem to be bizarrely applied to under 18s. For example, the judge who wants to prosecute a 17-year-old girl for distributing child pornography for the topless cellphone shot she willingly sent to her friend/boyfriend.

  14. wcfields Says:

    I have basically no opinion on the legality of this situation. Not familiar enough with the laws to say. I will note that one ‘double standard’ between men and women that is rarely made much of is the fact that 15 and 16 year old men are held accountable for acts of violence as if they were adults, but a 17-year-old girl is apparently not mature enough to be in charge of her sexuality. (This is not to say 17-year-olds should be legal, but perhaps that 15-year-olds should no be tried as adults for murder.)

    Morally, I actually think that the ‘fault’ such as it is lies with the confusion to be found at the intersection of porn, child abuse laws, and the commercialization/fetishization of youth and young sexuality so common in our culture today. (e.g. it’s perfectly acceptable for the uncomfortably-attractive, 16-year-old Demi Lovato to be sold as a sexual object, knowing full well that horny 14-year-olds and 45-year-olds alike jack off to her show on the Disney channel, but it’s criminal to film a 17-year-old having sex when she’s already married to a porn star and provides a fake I.D.)

    The massive swath of grey area these kinds of contradictions create forces us as a society to impose a relatively arbitrary distinction between acceptable and verboten behavior. That is, we designate a single day, the 18th birthday, as an age of consent. However, the importance of that date actually tends to run counter to our moral impulses about these sorts of situations. What I mean is: In a situation where we’re condemning D.D. for filming himself fucking a young girl and deceiving her into prostituting herself to random strangers, is the most morally problematic part of that situation the fact that D.D. didn’t wait a few months until some arbitrarily determined date had passed? Would he really have been morally righteous if he had waited until her 18th birthday?

    However, the existence of moral ambiguity does not excuse D.D. In fact, quite to the contrary. For we must always remember that, just as porn girls for the most part choose to be where they are, D.D. chose to position himself as an artist and business man RIGHT UP AGAINST that arbitrarily determined barrier, and thus D.D. is in the position of reckoning with that barrier as a part of his living. That is, the actual ‘professional’ part of what he’s doing as a pornographer is not the fucking, it’s the grappling with that moral ambiguity, and it’s the always staying in both legal and moral compliance with that ambiguity.

    To put it another way, and this applies broadly to people in positions of morally ambiguous power, we should never allow D.D. to say: “Well, I was just trying to film an 18-year-old at a glory hole, and made one little mistake that was hardly even my fault.” (Just as we should never, and should not have, allowed financial CEOs to say: “Well, I was just trying to make billions by betting on a complex set of unfounded financial instruments that basically nobody understood, and made one little mistake.” When a person decides to live and work right at the edge of moral and legal oblivion, that person accepts the responsibility of NEVER making that mistake. That’s why most people don’t do that job, is because they don’t want that responsibility. Look, I’ve got a pretty big dick, and I’d love to get paid to fuck Riley Shy for a living, and I live pretty near the San Fernando Valley, so I actually could get into porn if I really wanted to. The reason I don’t is because I could never stand the moral and spiritual oblivion that seems to be so prevalent in the industry. Hell, sometimes I can barely stand WATCHING porn for just that reason.

    So, my incredibly long-winded and yet likely unsurprising verdict is that it’s Dirty D’s fault. He’s responsible. He should know that a girl who is willing to get fucked on camera is very likely to lie about her age, and should take steps to protect himself accordingly. He didn’t, and now he’s going to pay the consequences. I’m pretty sure some other dirtbag will step in to fill the void.

  15. wcfields Says:

    Later addendum – So her story is that she told him she was 17, he said that didn’t matter, and then she got a fake ID to use for the shoot. Why? If he already knew she was 17, why did she have to have a fake ID? Something about this whole story doesn’t add up to me.

  16. wcfields Says:

    Also, @jeff, you have to establish ID for a call girl? LOL wut? Never used a call girl, but is this a real thing? They have to have ID to fuck you for money? How does this work?

  17. [name withheld] Says:

    @wcfields: Depends on the woman. Street hookers, of course, don’t really care much. The women you find on craigslist are about the same. But the higher quality call girls will want references from others you have been with (and yes, they do call them to be sure you are legit). These women often have enough regular clients that they can afford to be choosy about seeing someone new. If you don’t have references, they might just ignore your calls or emails, or if they feel like being nice to a newbie, they’ll ask you for several pieces of personal information that they can use to check you out.

  18. Garp Says:

    The girl was 17. The due diligence is on the “adult” There are plenty of girls 18 and above willing and able. If the law is 18 (maybe it should 16) he hurt himself and the industry by breaking this law.

  19. Dilla Says:

    She’s legally a minor at 17, and she was filmed for the purpose of pornography that he made a profit selling. For sure he will see jail time.

  20. Ryan Smith Says:

    Fuck that bitch for using a fake id

  21. PinkPanther Says:

    If Dirty D knowingly filmed a minor, then he’s an idiot and he’s screwed, legally. Does it seem credible? Yeah. There’s a lot of idiots in this world. Is the girl at fault? Well, the onus is on the person that is legally an adult, I believe.

    Is this other person an asshole for being out to get people in the adult industry? Well, sure, but anybody that thinks that there are NOT plenty of people out to get people in the adult industry, including people with a lot more resources than some random mid-westerner with a blog, is not paying any attention to what goes on in this country.

  22. stantheman Says:

    What stunt dick is she married too?
    He should have known better and talked her out of it although riding the sybian hardly classifies as hardcore porn to me

  23. J.D. Says:

    The point of the 18+ law is to protect girls who are under 18. Therefore, it makes sense that the girl should not be at fault here, since she is precisely the type of person the law was enacted to protect in the first place. Furthermore, it is clearly the producer’s responsibility to double- and triple-check that the girls he films are all legal; if he “had no way to verify that the ID belonged to her” as he claims, then he had no business filming her–any porn producer should know that.
    Was the girl foolish for using a fake ID to get into porn without considering the potential negative consequences? Of course! However, one of the many reasons this law exists is to prevent children from making foolish decisions that could have consequences far beyond what a 17 year-old might foresee.

  24. Strangepork Says:

    I agree with your point about the purpose of the law, J.D., but I still feel there should be some sort of penalties for the minor using the fake ID as well. Definitely, any producer who films underage girls should be made an example of. But if the word gets out that using a fake ID to misrepresent your age is not a crime, how do you deter more teenagers from attempting this same thing, or using fake ID’s to get other employment, or get into bars or clubs, or buying alcohol, cigarettes, porn, etc? I know I certainly would have had a fake ID when I was younger, if I thought there would be no consequences for getting caught using it.