Recap: The Luzerne County DA is arguing that Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes killed Bryan Kocis because Cuadra and Kerekes BELIEVED that Bryan Kocis was their main rival for the services of Adult Video Perfomer Sean Lockhart (aka Brent Corrigan). Cuadra and Kerekes, the DA alleges, wanted Sean Lockhart to work for their company but, the DA alleges that Lockhart was contractually bound to Bryan Kocis and Cobra Video

As we’ve pointed out many times here, contracts for sex are void an unenforceable instruments. No Court in America has ever found that a contract between an Adult Video Company and a Performer (for that performer to perform sex acts in an Adult Video) was a legal and enforceable document.

Smoking Gun AGAINST Sean Lockhart Testifying

IF The State does in fact call Sean Lockhart to testify at a preliminary hearing on Thursday, then I think it should be clear that The State has no ironclad case against Cuadra and Kerekes – that the State is merely hoping that Cuadra and Kerekes plead guilty to something or that The State gets a “sympathetic” Judge at trial.

The State’s argument that Cuadra and Kerekes BELIEVED that Bryan Kocis was their chief rival for Sean Lockhart’s services, according to The State, is based on Sean Lockhart telling Cuadra and Kerekes (in Las Vegas on or about January 2007) that he (Sean Lockart) was contractually bound to Cobra Video.

It is our position that Sean Lockhart, by virture of legal documents he had filed in his lawsuit with Bryan Kocis in San Diego, should have known that there were some “legal issues” with a “contract for sexual services”.

The Smoking Gun against Sean Lockhart as a witness, The Smoking Gun that SHOULD Keep Sean Lockhart off the witness stand on Thursday and at trial is this little fact:

When Sean Lockhart and his partner met with Harlow Cuadra in Las Vegas at the GAYVN EXPO, Lockhart had (apparently**) already filed legal documents in opposition to Bryan Charles Kocis’ lawsuit against him in San Diego in which Lockhart argued that Lockhart’s Contract with Bryan Kocis/Cobra Video was AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. In other words, before Sean Lockhart met with Harlow Cuadra in Las Vegas, Sean Lockhart had already argued before a Federal Judge that his contract(s) with Bryan Kocis was void and unenforceable because the contract was essentially a contract for sexual services (i.e., prostitution).

**Sexual (Re)consideration: Adult Entertainment Contracts and the Problem of Enforceability by Andrew Gilden. Is the submission to The GeorgeTown Law Journal that discussed contracts between Adult Video Companies and Adult Video Performers. Gilden referenced a pleaded that Sean Lockhart allegedly filed in response to Bryan Kocis’ lawsuit agains him in which Lockhart claimed that his contract with Kocis/Cobra Video was “against public a policy”- Answer at 10, Cobra Video, No. 06cv0293-J(LSP) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2006)..

“Sean Lockhart claims as an affirmative defense that the contract in question is unenforceable due to public policy.32 Although what stage of litigation this suit will reach is unclear, it provides an excellent starting point for addressing the problems and pitfalls of enforceability. The facts of the case are such that even the most liberal of courts would, at the very least, take pause at enforcing the terms of the contract.” Sexual (Re)consideration by Andrew Gilden.

So, if Sean Lockhart was arguing that his contract with Bryan Kocis was void and unenforceable, how could Cuadra and Kerekes have gotten the impression from Lockhart that Lockhart was “contractually bound” to Bryan Kocis/Cobra Video?

As we mentioned previously, if Sean Lockhart is presented as a witness to support the DA’s claim that Cuadra and Kerekes believed Bryan Kocis their main rival for Sean Lockhart’s services, the door then opens to why and how Cuadra and Kerekes could have been lead to believe that Sean Lockhart was contractually bound to Cobra Video? How Could Sean Lockhart have believed that he was contractually bound to Bryan Kocis/Cobra Video by a contract that Lockhart himself claimed IN COURT DOCUMENTS was void and unenforceable?

Look for The State to modify its “motive for the crime” to somehow claim that Cuadra and Kerekes wanted to use Sean Lockhart with him billed a BRENT CORRIGAN, a legal argument could be made that Cobra Video owns the mark BRENT CORRIGAN.

most people don’t realize that there are about 38 categories for trademarks. As I recall, Cobra Video trademark on Brent Corrigan is only in ONE category.