Another one falls from grace

[MdmeX]

Former Disney exec Richard Nanula ‘ruined’ by porn pix

• Last Updated: 10:16 AM, August 29, 2013
• Posted: 12:05 AM, August 29, 2013

<DIV id=story-body>Former Disney and Miramax exec Richard Nanula’s reputation in Hollywood is destroyed after his porn-star scandal, sources tell us.

Nanula resigned as Miramax board chairman in July after stills from a sex tape he purportedly starred in showed up on Web site thedirty.com. It then emerged that Nanula, 53 — a Harvard MBA who had big jobs at Disney, Starwood and Amgen — allegedly made a habit of hiring X-rated actresses to star with him in sex scenes he taped at his Malibu mansion with his own video camera.

Nanula’s spectacular fall from grace came as photos of a man said to be him having sex with X-rated actress Samantha Saint were posted online early this summer. At least two other adult- film actresses, S arah Shevon and Penny Pax, have since come forward to claim they were booked to perform with him.
<DIV id=intext_area_middle class=intext_area> Twitter
Samantha Saint

<DIV class="intext_object intext_photo">
<DIV class=caption>

[MdmeX]

Some men need to stop thinking with their D-I-C-K head!

[Gamma]

well .... my first question is whether it was illegal. if wi nuh business inna gay people bedroom .... then why?

suppose a man and his wife video tape themselves for their own personal "use" and it gets out there ... should they have to resign from their high profile/government jobs?

[MdmeX]

Me nuh care what they do. But is full time some of them realize that some women they associate with are slick and EVIL! !

[Mosiah]

What he does with his wife is the same as what he does with a prostitute?!

[Gamma]

I am not talking about him, that was a general statement. And my first question is whether he did anything illegal

[Hortical]

The disguise was a so-called sex tape, when in essence the women were paid for sex. Insufficient evidence for prosecution, and authorities would need proof money was exchanged for sex. The women would need to testify under oath, and it is their word against his.