do lawyers ever say otherwise?

the whole transcript, plus more links can be found at:
http://www.eonline.com/Ne...86,00.html



Pee-wee Fights Back

by Joal Ryan
Jan 27, 2003, 1:00 PM PT

Paul Reubens is a collector, not a pornographer.

At least that's the argument from his defense attorney in a motion contesting the kiddie-porn case facing the onetime kid TV star.

The document, filed Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is a formal challenge to the evidence that saw the erstwhile Pee-wee Herman rung up on a misdemeanor possession charge last November.

The motion argues that when cops descended on Reubens' Hollywood Hills home in November 2001, they walked away with pieces of a "vast and valuable historical collection of artwork, kitsch memorabilia and adult erotica."

Oh, and the Rob Lowe videotape, too.

The Lowe tape, a famously infamous bit of video featuring the Brat Packer politicking with an underage female in a hotel room during the 1988 Democratic Convention, has been a source of contention in the Reubens case. The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, earlier this month, denied reports that Reubens was to be prosecuted for possessing the much-bootlegged tape. But, in her motion, attorney Blair Berk says prosecutors told her that the tape was considered part of the "alleged contraband" seized at Reubens' home.

The motion goes on to note that, according to Berk, prosecutors have since "abandoned" their plan to indict Reubens for Lowe's past sins.

What has not been abandoned by prosecutors, per the defense motion, is a case that seeks to bust Reubens for 170 images (some culled from a "vintage book" and "approximately 24 vintage magazines") and a "single vintage film" that were found among his aforementioned "historical collection."

The liberal use of the words "vintage" and "historical" is not for lack of a thesaurus. It appears the defense is preparing to argue that the alleged kiddie-porn items in Reubens' collection were produced before a 1989 California law made such materials illegal.

To that end, William Hendricks, a professor of photography at Ventura College, writes in a separate motion, also filed Friday, that "all" the images tagged as damning evidence were produced "no later than the 1970s and perhaps as early as the turn of the 20th century."

Both court documents can be found, in their entirety, on the Smoking Gun.

The city attorney's office declined comment Monday. But prosecutors are expected to formally respond with their own filing by February 4. A February 10 hearing is set for a judge to decide if the Reubens evidence will be tossed--or not.

Reubens, currently free on $20,000 bail, has pleaded innocent to the one misdemeanor count facing him.

According to the defense motion, the onetime Pee-wee is a supersized pack rat. While police picked up 30,000 pictures and 650 hours of film during their search, another 70,000 pictures and "thousands" more hours of film were left behind, according to the filing.

The Reubens case stemmed from the same investigation that has landed actor Jeffrey Jones in even hotter water.

Jones, best known as the obsessed principal in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, is accused of hiring a 14-year-old boy to pose for explicit pictures. He has pleaded innocent to that felony charge, as well as a misdemeanor possession rap. Like Reubens, Jones remains free on $20,000 bail.

rio said:

aye, there's the rub.

Man, I used to watch Pee-Wee every once in awhile when I was young. I am ashamed.

BattierBeMyDaddy said:

I remember Pee We from Cheech n Chong and his 1980 HBO special...his problems do not surprise me in the least.

PeeWee's Playhouse was one of my favorites.

LaVisHh said:

me too...i think that's why this one is bugging me even more than the others in the recent rash of child porn busts...

collector vs. pornographer?

i am not sure that's anything more than an 'i say to-MAY-to you say to-MAH-to' defense...
[This message was edited Wed Feb 5 14:52:19 PST 2003 by rio]

rio said:

This is actually a very interesting thought. I would like to know if what PeeWee collected was truly pornography, or was this a person obsessed with being a child.

I realize this sounds way out there, but in reality - it would have to be blantantly sexual.

Guess we sit and wait. I'm sure it's gonna be splattered everywhere.

I guess I don't know what to say. I'm a big fan of Pee-Wee. I think his stuff is great! But this child pornography thing is tough to pass judgement on without knowing what he has in his collection. Defining "pornography" can be extremely difficult. I remember people being upset about Benetton ads because they featured naked babies. Babies. The idea was that just because there is a naked baby, someone, somewhere will find that erotic or sexual in nature and "that is just sick and wrong" so we shouldn't produce pictures of naked babies anywhere. To me that doesn't make sense.
Of course, owning videos of minors having sex would definitely fall into the child pornography category, so if the rest is along the lines of the Rob Lowe tape, he's obviously broken the law.