Christi Lake has now filed a lawsuit against Luke Ford in the superior court of the county of Los Angeles. In her suit Lake also identifies herself as a member of the Screen Actors Guild besides being an adult actress. Lake also states that she's heavily involved in political activism and has participated and continues to participate in lobbying and other political activities intended to promote and protect the First Amendment and personal privacy rights of adults who wish to participate in and or receive lawful adult oriented goods and services.
Lake's lawsuit states that she has publically spoken out against child pornography, bestiality and non-consensual sexual entertainment. Accordingly she has also received the 1999 "Positive Image" award from the Free Speech Coalition in acknowledgment of her professional persona and tireless efforts in promoting a positive image for the lawful adult entertainment industry.
Lake is also identified as an associate board member of the Protecting Adult Welfare Federation, has been a guest lecturer at Cal Poly, Pomona, California State University, Long Beach and the World Pornography Conference sponsored by California State University, Northridge. Lake is the author of a monthly magazine column and a regular guest columnist for Sundown publications.
Lake's lawsuit identifies Ford as "a Matt Drudge" type reporter who claims to publish ("scoop") factual information pertaining to the inner workings of the adult entertainment industry and private personal information pertaining to the individuals involved therein.
"Defendant's website is similar to a newspaper or magazine as it is updated daily and prior days stories (back issues) are archived and available for reading," the lawsuit goes on to say. "Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant's book and website have been read by many individuals who, based on Defendant's representations, believe him to be an authority and a source of truthful information pertaining to the adult entertainment industry and those people working therein.
On or about Sunday, September 26, 1999, Ford, according to Lake, published an article on his internet website entitled "Christy Lake Bestiality." The article contained a series of photographs which Ford alleged contained images of Lake engaging in sexual intercourse with a dog. Ford included five photographic images, in JPEG format which were entitled: 1) "Christi Lake?"; 2) "Christi Lake?"; 3) "Lake"; 4) "Lake"; and 5) "Lake". The file names of the JPEG images associated with the aforementioned titles were: 1) "christy_jpeg"; 2) "christy1_jpeg"; 3) "christy2_jpeg"; 4) "christy3_jpeg"; and 5) "christy4_jpeg".
Each of the Photographs includes a visual depiction (which Ford claims were captured from a videotape) of an unknown human female engaging in actual sexual intercourse with a male dog. Ford also included the following statement "Luke's received pictures of a slender blonde woman with a dog. The woman in the photos resembles Christi Lake."
Lake's suit contends that Ford's website does not fall within the statutory requirements of California Civil Code § 48(a). "However, immediately upon learning of [Ford's] defamatory publications, and within 20 days of said publication, Plaintiff served upon Defendant the following written demand for retraction, which Defendant received and subsequently published on his website:
"Luke, You have 24 hours to remove my name from those bestiality pictures and the accompanying text contained in your archives for September 26, 1999 or you will be hearing from my attorney. That is not me and it doesn't even look like me. How dare you! I will take this action immediately if you do not remedy this situation. I've gotten numerous e-mails from my fans alerting me to this disgusting libelous act - I didn't even know about it until tonight since I don't read your error-filled website.
"Suffice it to say, I am deeply offended and thought you and I had worked out a truce. Apparently that is not the case. I'm hurt and saddened that you would even attempt to link my name to such an atrocity period, let alone without even checking with me first. I would never consider such an act, nor do I condone it from others. Once again it proves that you do not check your sources - or even care if things are true before you print them. I am requesting, no demanding, a public apology from you, posted on your website within the next 48 hours. I also want my name taken off the filename for all the photos, e.g. christy.jpg... along with any and all reference or inference to me, my name or likeness being associated with any bestiality photos whatsoever.
"I also want my entire e-mail reply to you posted on your site, uncensored and uncut. I will expect to hear back from you tomorrow with your proposed apology and associated remedies."
Ford, according to the Lake lawsuit, responded by publishing the following statement on his website: "If the girl in the photos is not you, I apologize. Luke's received a video clip and it still looks like Christy. The title page of the clip is labelled [sic] "Kristy MPEGs."" [Ford] failed to publish an appropriate retraction, or to promptly remove the Photographs, headings or statements. [Lake] has never engaged in nor condoned bestiality. Plaintiff [Lake] is, in fact, highly allergic to dogs.
According to Lake's suit, Ford's heading, statements, and the titles under which he published the Photographs, imply allegations of a provably false defamatory facts; e.g.; that Plaintiff [Lake] had engaged in sexual relations with a dog and had allowed herself to be photographed doing so. The natural and probable effect of Defendant's [Ford's] publication on the mind of the average reader is that said reader would believe that Plaintiff [Lake] had engaged in sexual relations with a dog and allowed herself to be photographed doing so.
"Defendant's [Ford's] heading, statements, Photograph titles, and the defamatory facts alleged therein are false. Defendant's [Ford's] publication, and the statements contained therein, are libelous per-se in that they have exposed Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and/or obloquy, and/or caused her to be shunned or avoided and/or injured her in her occupation.
"Defendant's [Ford's] publication, and the statements contained therein, are slanderous pre-se as they charge Plaintiff with committing a crime (Obscenity); impute the present existence of a loathsome disease (Paraphilia); tend directly to injure Plaintiff in her profession; and impute a want of chastity.
"Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant undertook no investigation as to the identity of the female depicted in the Photographs, nor the truth or falsity of his allegations, prior to publication. Defendant has previously admitted that it not uncommon for him to publish untrue factual assertions without making any reasonable attempt to ascertain the truthfulness of said assertions.
"Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant has confided in certain individuals that he did not actually believe, at the time he published the article, that Plaintiff was the female depicted in the Photographs.
"As a publisher of materials depicting actual sexual conduct, Defendant is required by federal law (18 USC § 2257(b)) to obtain, prior to publication of the materials, and to maintain "an identification document containing ... the performer's name and date of birth ...." Further, pursuant to 18 USC § 2257(c), Defendant is required to "maintain the records required by this section at his business premises...."
"Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant complied with federal law and acquired the requisite identification documents, prior to publication. Such documents identify an individual other than Plaintiff as the female depicted in the Photographs.
"Alternatively, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant has violated federal law by failing to acquire and maintain the identification documents required pursuant to 18 USC § 2257 which, if they exist, identify an individual other than Plaintiff as the female depicted in the Photographs.
"Defendant made the malicious defamatory publications with actual knowledge of their falsity and/or reckless disregard for their truth or falsity and in violation of federal law. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's defamatory publication, Plaintiff has suffered special damages including but not limited to monetary expenses incurred in combating Defendant's untruthful allegations.
"As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's defamatory publication, Plaintiff has suffered damage to her reputation in an amount not as yet ascertained, but within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's defamatory publication, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional trauma and distress of such a substantial quantity and enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.
"Defendant's activities, as alleged above, constitutes malicious conduct which was calculated to, and did, subject Plaintiff to cruel and unjust injury in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3294(c)(1).
Lake's lawsuit also contends that she suffered an invasion of privacy.
"The facts disclosed in Defendant's publication were false, and portrayed the Plaintiff in a false light in the eye of the public. The false light in which Plaintiff was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Defendant had actual knowledge of the falsity and/or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the publicized facts and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed by his publication.
"As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's publication, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not yet ascertained, but within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Defendant's activities, as alleged above, constitutes malicious conduct which was calculated to, and did, subject Plaintiff to cruel and unjust injury in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3294(c)(1).
Lake's suit calls for compensatory, general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00); and, for declaratory relief in the form of an Order by the Court that Ford publish an appropriate retraction and remove all other mention of Plaintiff from his publications; and, For exemplary damages in an amount the Court deems appropriate; and, for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and, for any additional remedy this Court deems just and appropriate.
Lak'es suit also calls for a jury trial.
Lake's attorney Alan Gelbard had this to say: "I can tell you that Ms. Lake is very upset about what Mr. Ford did, and we're going to seek our remedies in court rather than trying the case in the media. Gelbard confirmed that Ford was served the suit in the parking lot of Center for Inquiry West Sunday morning just prior to giving a talk on hisbook about the history of the adult business.
"I asked my guy to do it in such a way that wouldn't cause him any undue embarrassment," Gelbard said.
