Park Smith & Lim LLP, attornies representing Laurie Holmes, the widow of the late adult performer John Holmes, have filed a lawsuit against both Luke Ford and Ford's Internet provider Fantastic On Line.
The suit which was filed December 14 in the Superior Court of the State of California contends that Ford on November 11, 1999 "republished on his World Wide Web site the following description originally uttered by William Amerson" concerning Holmes and that Ford did so "with knowledge of their falsity."
Amerson is quoted, or rather re-quoted by Ford as saying, "She [Laurie Holmes] was a hooker. While she was making a movie, during the breaks, she'll get dressed...She always dressed as a little girl because she knew that she could make more money from men if she looked younger. She'd go hitchhike around the blocks and turn tricks in the car and come back iun time for the scene."
The entire hooker controversy stems from an article which first appeared in the New York Post stating that Laurie Homes was suing Amerson, John Holmes' one time best friend. Amerson said basically the same things about Laurie Holmes in the documentary "Wadd: The Life and Times of John Holmes." Holmes has denied ever being a prostitute and subsequently brought suit against Amerson, director Wes Emerson and VCA Labs among others.
Holmes also filed that suit in the Superior Court of the State of California. Gary Frischer, one of Holmes' attornies said at the time: "The most important thing to understand about this [the Amerson] lawsuit is that in this film Bill Amerson accuses and convicts Laurie of committing a crime. In the state of California you can't do that." Frischer said this is considered slander per se. "It is based on the fact that if you accuse someone of a crime, and prostitution is a crime in California; if you don't have a conviction for that crime, that's slander per se. Damages are presumed. We don't have to go into the kind of damages or pain and suffering; they're presumed. It's presumed that her reputation was injured. It's a slam-dunk case."
Fantastic On Line's role in the December 14 suit is stated: "On or about the same time [November 11], and at various times thereafter, Fantastic sponsored Ford's website and allowed it to remain online and open to the public via the Internet.
The suit goes on to say that on November 15, Holmes' attornies sent Fantastic a letter asserting that the statements about Holmes were wholly false and demanded that Ford and Fantastic remove "the defamatory statements" from Ford's website. "Ford reprinted the demand letter of plaintiff on his World Wide Web site on November 15, 1999, but did not remove the "defamatory statements" from his web site, the suit contends.
The Ford suit states that Amerson's words were "slanderous per se" because they charge [Holmes] with the crime of prostitution in violation of California Civil Code section 46 [1]. "The words uttered were false because [Holmes] has never committed the crime of prostitution," the Ford suit states.
According to the Ford suit, "as a proximate result of this false statement," [Holmes] has suffered injury to her reputation, business, trade, profession and occupation. The suit also contends that Ford published the quotes with "malice and oppression" in that he "willfully and intentionally published" false statements "solely for the purpose of causing [Holmes] ridicule, embarrassment and disdain in the community." The suit cites Fantastic On Line with malice and oppression and reckless disregard for the truth after a cease and desist request. The suit also charges Fantastic with oppression, fraud or malice persuant to California Civil Code section 3294.
The suit asks for exemplary and punitive damages according to proof in a number of areas including loss of earnings, damages to reputation, business, trade, profession, occupation and court costs.
