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.

<center> [attachmentid=1775] <br> Obscure Gay Pornstar/<br>Director Wannabe(adult site) </center>
Oh, here’s a shocker … That guy behind Rolling Stone, you know – the one who left his wife and kids for another Guy, is “doing” Brent Corrigan

(err, his magazine is reportedly preparing an article on Sean Lockhart aka Brent Corrigan)

Well, all you Guys who were wondering who Sean Lockhart’s new Sugar Daddy would be. Ha ha ha ha ha!

I kid, I kid. I kid the Sean. The Sean Lockhart knows that Jesus is a kidder. I mean, look at his life. Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Ooooo, stop! Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Just because Jann looks like an older richer Bryan Kocis …

Ummm, Jann … ummm, It wouldn’t hurt to like start wearing a metal dog collar and to like stash some guns around troughout your apartment . Ha Ha Ha Ha

Jesus Loves You Sean Lockhart

Some obscure Gay Pornstar/Gay Porn Director named Chris Steele (or someone using his name) has posted some gossip on a blog that Rolling Stone Magazine will shortly be publishing an article on Sean Lockhart aka Brent Corrigan. Extremely Obscure Little Known Porn Director Wannabe Chris Steele claims also that Out Magazine is doing an indept series of articles on the Harlow Cuadra / Joseph Kerekes Trial. But,

Jesus, never liked Chris Steele.

Who saw Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes in Luzerne County? And, When was Bryan Charles Kocis last seen alive?

Apparently, there is nobody in all of Luzerne County who can testify under oath that he or she saw Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes in Luzerne County even though Joseph Kerekes claims that he “ate at restaurants, went shopping and, as I recall, worked out at some local gym” in Luzerne County on or about 1/24/07. Citizen Voice WNEP

Why even bother putting a Hotel Clerk on the witness stand if the hotel clerk can’t testify that he/she actually saw either Cuadra or Kerekes? Someone checked into a Hotel using the ID of Joseph Kerekes so we are to just ASSUME that person was in fact Joseph Kerekes (and that Bryan Kocis was alive on that date). The most obvious reasonable doubt would be that Harlow Cuadra had access to identification material for Joseph Kerekes. It is “Standard Operating Procedure” for two Accuseds to create resonable doubt by blaming each other for the crime.

Next up in the Preliminary Hearing in Luzerne County today per the Bryan Kocis Murder Trial is The Coroner. The Coroner for Luzerne County testified that Bryan Kocis was killed by someone nearly cutting off Kocis’ head but, not one word, apparently, on When Bryan Kocis was killed. I would point out here that The Coroner was quoted in Luzene County newspapers as saying “he didn’t know when Kocis was killed” BEFORE Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes were even arrested.

So, The State hasn’t established when Kocis was killed NOR when Bryan Kocis was last seen alive so, “Where is this ironclad case against Cuadra and Kerekes we’ve heard so much about?”

Well, this is only the beginning of what Newspapers in Luzerne County are claiming will be a days long preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing was continued to Thursday.

<center> [attachmentid=1772] <br> Bryan Kocis’ House</center>
This is very strange …

It has been our position from the “git-go” that there would not be any murder trials for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes; that there was no chance in Hell that Sean Lockhart would voluntarily set foot in Luzerne County (and, I would note, it does not look very good for The State if The State’s Star Witness is AFRAID of The State and The State’s Star Witness has to be FORCED to appear at a trial in Luzerne County by Court Order).

Any murder trial into who killed Bryan Kocis would be the biggest freak show ever in the history of the American Justice System by virture of the Witnesses that would testify at such a trial and the details of Bryan Kocis’ life and times in Luzerne County. In our opinion, nobody in public office in Luzerne County would walk away from a Bryan Kocis Murder Trial without being tainted by Bryan Kocis. Well,

It looks like “The Powers That Be In Luzerne County” are also of the opinion that there won’t be any murder trial over who Killed Bryan Kocis. Bryan Kocis’ house has been destroyed, before any trial, before any preliminary hearings for Cuadra and Kerekes and before those rumored “additional arrests”. If there are still more people to be arrested and more arrested people to retain lawyers to defend them in re The Bryan Kocis Murder Scandal, would The State have given the go ahead to destroy the alleged murder scene?

The demolition drew a small crowd of about a dozen neighbors Friday morning. Michael and Nancy Parsons, who were Kocis’ closest friends on the street, said it was almost alarming to see the home fall so quickly. When the claw of the huge excavator bit through the wall of Kocis’ upstairs bedroom, Nancy Parsons noticed some of his clothes still hanging in the closet … Soon, his remaining personal possessions, which were not salvageable after the fire, fell into a heap on top of the foundationCitizen Voice

Almost as strange as the fact that the alleged murder scene has been destroyed is the quote in the Citizen Voice that there was still photographic equipment in Bryan Kocis’ house when the house was destroyed. According to the Arrest Affidavit for Harlow Cuadra, The State is claiming that Cuadra and Kerekes stole photographic equipment from Kocis’ House. Maybe it’s just me but, wouldn’t you think that, in order for The State to argue that Cuadra and Kerekes STOLE photographic equipment from Kocis’ house, that ALL of the known photographic equipment that Kocis possessed would be kept under lock and key as critical trial evidence?

The Citizen Voice article also claims that clothing belonging to Bryan Kocis could still be seen in Kocis’ closet.

Bryan Kocis’ Camera

And on the matter of that camera Harlow Cuadra had that “looked like” a camera that Bryan Kocis had.

Are we to assume that it is impossible to determine if a camera in Harlow Cuadra’s possession was purchased at the same electronics store where Bryan Kocis shopped? Wouldn’t a camera that belonged to Bryan Kocis have some trace of Bryan Kocis’ DNA?

Since The State clearly has the resources to specifically determine if the camera in Harlow Cuadra’s possession belonged to Bryan Kocis. The fact that The State did not specifically state that the camera Harlow Cuadra had was Bryan Kocis’ property leads me to believe that The State is hoping that a jury will just ASSUME that the camera in Harlow Cuadra’s possession was Bryan Kocis’ camera (based solely on the allegations that the cameras “looked” the same and the serial numbers on Cuadra’s camera were allegedly filed off).

Bryan Kocis’ House As Evidence

What I found most interesting about the video tape I’ve seen of Bryan Kocis’ house is how close Bryan Kocis’ house was to his neighbor’s house.

The Proximity of Bryan Kocis’ house to his neighbor’s house definitely raised questions as to how so much could have allegedly been going on in Bryan Kocis’ house without his neighbors hearing something. AND,

I hate to go all John Wayne Gacy here but, did anyone actually check Bryan Kocis’ basement as if it might have been a “crime scene”? It seems to me that a guy who had “several guns” hidden all over his house might have had one or two “interesting things” buried in his basement.

If I was a Defense Attorney for Cuadra an Kerekes and, I had the “ways and the means”, I would have had DNA testing done on everything in Kocis’ basement and determined how many “bodies” (i.e., different people) may have been in Kocis’ basement at one time or another.

We know that Bryan Kocis definitely did business in his basement. So, DNA tests on furnishings and other items in Bryan Kocis’ basement, you would think, would have shown the presence of a whole lot of guys in Bryan Kocis house. AND, clearly, it would have been almost impossible for The State to prove how long ago or how recent those “individuals” may have been in Kocis’ Basement. Oops,

Something just occurred to me … if Bryan Kocis’ killer DID take a camera from Kocis’ house, isn’t it likely that that camera would have been in Kocis’ “studio”? Wasn’t Kocis’ “production studio” in his basement?

It is a little amazing that all of these so-called “lawyers” and “legal experts” blogging and posting comments on the Bryan Kocis Murder case have apparently NOT recogized the significance of an order on August 20, 2007 that there be separate trials for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes.

A recent appeal in Luzerne County, in which one murder suspect turned semi-State’s witness against the other murder suspect, highlighted the fact that probably the most important outcome of preliminary hearings for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes on or about August 20, 2007 would be a decision that they must have separate trials.

It seems clear from the Weakley Selenski Case that THE STATE will contest any orders that there be separate trials and that the resulting appeals will further delay any murder trials for Cuadra and Kerekes.

With Separate Trials

In addition to the obvious added cost and expense of separate trials for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes, separate trials means that certain statements made by Kerekes that incriminate Cuadra could not be used against Cuadra unless Kerekes testifies at Cuadra’s trial. Similarly, certain statements made by Cuadra that incriminate Kerekes could likewise not be used against Kerekes unless Cuadra testifies at Kerekes’ trials. For example, The Black’s Beach Tapes could most likely not be used against Kerekes at Kerekes’ trial if Cuadra says statements on the tape that incriminate Kerekes (as The State claims).

Now, when you are talking about two guys who have been lovers and business partners for six years (who who had lawyers BEFORE they were arrested), you have to at least SUSPECT that Cuadra and Kerekes have been building the case for separate trials from the moment they were identified as suspects.

It is possible that “certain statements” made by Joseph Kerekes during his “jailhouse interview” with a reporter could be important “evidence” supporting a claim by Cuadra that he would be prejudiced if his trial was no separated from Kerekes’ trial.

We mentioned the Weakley Selenski Case before (see Black’s Beach Tapes Out Against Joseph Kerekes ) and noted how critical separate trials for Cuadra and Kerekes could prove to be.