Part 3- On to the United States



As we left Farrier in New Zealand, while he had said he was no longer doing the documentary, in a conversation with the Tool, I said that “Unless he is lying He is done with the documentary.” In saying that I had a sense that there was something about him that not only did not sit well, but I knew I had seen it before, I just could not place it. It did not take long for me to see what exactly I was dealing with. To Farrier, people were not human beings, but a means to an end. He was dressing himself up in the cloak of fighting homophobia, the great protector of the Gay consciousness.

I had had a very deep conversation with Farrier regarding the AIDS reality of the 80’s and 90’s. Shortly after we returned to the states,  we did a shoot that when Farrier and a crew showed at the studio his true colors, and his complete lack of honor, ethics, and decency showed up with him. Then it hit me and what Farrier was became very clear. In the late 80’s when people were getting sick and dying a despicable type of creature burrowed into the sadness, sickness, and death of AIDS. They would follow the death notices and see who survived someone who died of AIDS.         They then befriended them and became their primary caregiver while stealing from them everything they owned as they died. It was that sociopathic, despicable evil,that inhabited those people. That evil was what I saw flowing  through Farrier. They lived in a great darkness not caring who they hurt, had no governor on the damage they did, or what they took from people. While again that sounds line inflamed rhetoric I will explain why I reached that conclusion, and document his lies, ethical lapses and his attempts to harm gay people and you can draw your own conclusions.

Back in the USA

We left New Zealand not yet knowing that Farrier in reality was not interested in hearing anything that disputed the story he wanted to tell. My photographer stopped in San Francisco, and my assistant and I flew on to NYC. We were home for 2 nights and were out at 7AM for a flight to Los Angeles to do a shoot. We were not even home for 48 hours. In the documentary rather that say he was lying to me about not doing the documentary any more, he alludes to it saying the tool talked him out of it, and they discovered then that we had a shoot in a few days and they decided to go. Now this is one of the many cover-your-ass lies he tells to fit the narrative he has decided to tell. This one is so simple to disprove. All one has to do is see when the plane tickets were bought, the car and hotel reservations were made, and you will see the lie.

He shows up at the shoot and what you see in his footage is actually very interesting. No participant is under duress. Everyone going in and out is friendly, having a good time, in fact most of them were repeat participant. . I tell him to leave, he is not welcome. Like most things in this sham he does not show what happened next. He called my cell to get a response. I missed the call and called right back. Of course he recorded the call which basically consisted of me calling him in an animated fashion a lying piece of S**t, over and over. Of course Farrier could, as usual, not help himself. Within hours the call was up on Youtube , in another attempt for him to try and demean me. Like everything else though, he provides no context. It’s akin to hitting a person in the foot with a hammer, then turning on the camera and only showing the response. In this case however it was illegal. California is a 2 party state. Before you can record any phone conversation with someone on the phone you must have the permission of the other party. He did not. Now of course he will deny that, but just ask him what is here: That is a classic example of his disdain for anything that resembles legal or ethical behavior.

I Have no idea where he went and when, but his trips to the Unites States form the basis of his narrative, with virtually none of it corroborated,and as I will show you, simply put lies. Let’s look at some of the most egregious lies:

“Young men are conned into Fetish work”

Farrier makes the point that what I shoot is “Gay Fetish” Material. To prove his point, he engages a pornographer from Florida, Richard Ivey, who runs a website (warning: this site contains adult material)

Farrier shows footage of a young shirtless male in a restraint chair with an older man (Ivey) tickling him, then in slow motion the older man (Ivey) plays with the young man’s nipples in a sexually suggestive manner. This Farrier claims, is what I shoot. What Farrier does not tell you is that Richard Ivey is also an associate producer who paid Farrier $1,000 for the privilege, and uses the film as advertising for his site including countless tweets and even a photo of him, and the action in the New York Times. Nowhere does the Times  let people know that he is in fact a pornographer, which allows the implication that this is what I shoot. What I shoot is not gay fetish porn. That is a lie. And the proof is simple. Show me any of tickling footage I have shot where anyone has as much as a shirt off, and any footage where someone is having their nipples fondled, or anything that could be construed as any type of sexual contact. It is, as I said, a lie used to try and tarnish everyone involved. It is also a place to promote Ivey and his pornography. This tars everyone I have shot as gay fetish porn actors that were conned into doing the porn.

The idea that anyone was conned into the shoot is again a lie. The only proof offered is from a man I shot called TJ. Among the lies he told he claimed he had no idea it was all guys, and that I had told him we were doing it for possible “Military Applications.” That is a tag line that shows up in the trailer and gets a good laugh in the theater. The only problem with both of those things is they are untrue. Every person I have shot is told in advance exactly what we are doing so there are no surprises. I personally talked with TJ before the shoot and explained everything we do in detail. It is the same procedure I have followed with hundreds of participants. If it is an all-male shoot that is what they are told. If it is females doing the tickling that is what they are told. They are also told that they will be restrained for some of the tickling. When they ask why, they are told what is the truth. Farrier would have you believe that the purpose of the restraints is some kind of power control thing. What I tell them is the purpose of the restraints to for the safety of the participants. If they are not restrained the chances of being hit by an elbow or knee. They are not only informed in advance, but at the time of the shoot they see a previous participant get tickled and if there is anything that they feel uncomfortable with they are free not leave. In reality of the hundreds I have shot only once did someone not go further at that point. Every shoot has a mix of first time participants and returning participants and the new guys are put in direct contact with the people they are going to work with who have done it before. To facilitate his narrative of lies Farrier uses footage of TJ in his tickling session while TJ lies through his teeth. The proof of this lie is rather simple. Farrier used footage of the SECOND time I had shot TJ. We actually attempted to shoot him a third time at his request but his schedule did not match up with ours. How was it I conned him twice? Why TJ lied I cannot speak to, but like everything else in Farrier’s script there are so many lies that whatever truth might be there is meaningless.

“ David Starr stopped shooting tickling because the person in charge was using footage without the talent’s permission”

Having no knowledge of David Starr, my only reason for mentioning him is the issue Farrier makes of the fact that using the footage without the permission of the talent was an example of the pernicious approach of the “Tickle Lady”. It was the reason David Starr had an attack of conscience and stood up to her. Typical of Farriers approach all one gets is Starr’s side of the story. He is obviously a very crude individual with nothing said about his past other than he is a fringe personality who was some type of “casting agent” He makes several crude remarks in the documentary and here is an example of his recent postings on a blog devoted to the documentary. “These message exchanges that we are doing here sure reminds me of the old days. By the way, something that didn’t make it in the film is when I was asked if I thought you were a girl or a guy, I replied, “I didn’t really care if he was a girl, he could be an old ugly cigar smoking fat fuck in a shithole office in New York with his pants down to his knees jerking off to all this crap…” I guess they thought it was probably too profane, but when I saw you on screen – damn it, I didn’t know how right I was…. I may have mistaken about the cigar smoking though.
David Starr
David Starr Casting / TickleFilms”

Somehow Farrier wants people to believe this degenerate is a sympathetic character who was in a one sided relationship with the “Tickle Lady” and was abused. I don’t think it is rocket science to conclude this man has serious mental issues. As for if he is credible and believable, let’s ask Farrier what David Starr’s criminal background is and how does it relate to his credibility? You have two choices here 1. I don’t know or 2. I chose not to put it in the documentary…because it would harm my false narrative. Anyone want to guess which one it is?

However, we will get to Mr. Starr chapter and verse later. What I would like to address is the issue of using footage without permission being one of the things that the “tickle lady” has done in an attempt to ruin the lives of the participants. It is one of Farriers lynch pins of the bad treatment people received. Does anyone want to guess if Farrier cared about using footage I shot without the permission of the participants? When I shot them they were told that it would be seen by a selective audience and not widely distributed. Farrier not only uses it without concern for the people in it, but puts it out on a much wider scale and brands them as people who are involved in gay fetish porn. Just who is abusing who here? When you agree to lie for Farrier this is what you get:

Do you think any of the guys in my footage were treated like this?

Does Farrier get a rush when the audience laughs at these men? Hisses and mocks them? If the concern is not to have these men abused this is far worse and on a much larger scale than anything he claims to be fighting. Imagine your grandparents at home watching HBO and seeing that their grandson according to Farrier is involved in Gay Fetish Porn for money. Again just who is abusing whom here? I assume you can hear him say it’s fair use the lawyers told me so. Well doing the damage to these young men’s lives by connecting them to something that isn’t even true is not harming them? He will tell you well none of them would talk to me because they were all afraid of reprisals. I will get to that later, but as anyone can see, he was told on camera in Auckland by my assistant that he did not want to be shot, he promised he would blur out his image,and went the extra mile to find footage of him as a participant to try and humiliate him. He did not want to be filmed, was promised he would not be, because he knew we were going as three gay people and did not want to be outed in certain parts of his life. In Farriers world that is Farrier’s decision not my assistant’s. Outing people without concern for their lives realities is just one of the arrows in Farrier’s sadistic quiver. Let’s look at the dictionary definition of the word Sadist: “Someone who gets pleasure from hurting or being cruel to someone else.” Farrier had no reason to hurt this fine young man. He not only lied about blurring out his face, but he went out of his way to cause as much harm as he could. Farrier is plain and simple a sadistic bully.

In the infamous first meeting at the Hilton Hotel in Auckland the first 10  minutes was taken up by me telling Farrier and the Tool that his actions were far worse than who he claimed to be saving people from. The example of using footage of people without concern for their feelings on the matter, simply put abusing people that you are claiming are being abused by others is beyond cruel it is evil.

“No one would talk to us. There was a conspiracy of silence for fear of retribution.”

This is a theme that runs throughout the documentary. That there was some great conspiracy run by “Them” to keep people silent. This went beyond participants and even included one of NY’s most prestigious law firms; D’Amato and Lynch. Among the lies was to never clarify that he was not doing a story for News 3 where he was employed as a journalist at the time, but rather a “for- profit documentary.” This was in full view that when he did a “Catfish” style interview with someone he claimed was the stepmother of the documentary principal. Other than being an elderly woman, we have no idea who he was talking to. He introduced himself as doing a “story” on her stepson. He did not say “Documentary”, he said “Story”. He did not tell her he was recording her or that she was going to be in a documentary. Anyone want to guess if he has a release from her? While she tells a tale right out of Cinderella, there is no verification of anything she says. Nothing is questioned. Not even the simplest of questions like “when was the last time you saw this person?” How much contact since your husband’s death have you had with him? Nothing. When he talked to D’Amato and Lynch it was another “Catfish” call with Farrier holding the phone on speaker near his face so you could see his facial expressions of shock and disappointment. He spoke with a woman who answered the phone who told him that she had no information for him. He did not ask her if she spoke for the firm, or was authorized to speak for the firm, he just put on the snarky face and lumped the firm in with those who were part of the conspiracy of silence. Does he have a release from her? Does he even know her name? The answer to both of those questions are obviously no, but contemplate the arrogance here. He will impugn the integrity and honor of a major law firm with the response of the women answering the phone? If he really wanted an official response from the firm why didn’t he officially ask for one. He was standing in front of the firm why not do your best Michael Moore impersonation and walk through the front door and request an interview? Why not send a registered letter with your request to prove you tried? Why not an email? The answer to this is also obvious. The sadistic bully farrier is also a coward. Do you really think he had the courage to speak with someone who would stand up to him? Do you think he would allow anyone to say anything that did not fit his narrative? Of course not. He tried to bully me in Auckland and I would have none of it.

As for the participants as Farrier was told over and over again they had no problem with us. We offered them countless emails from people who said as much. At least 98 % of the participants requested to do it again. He went around the country telling people that we were a bunch of criminals all going to jail and you might avoid it if you talk to him. This is an example of how he communicated.


He offered this person money to talk. The person called me and asked me what to do. I told him take the money.


He called Farrier’s bluff and Farrier did not send the money because he did not have it. Look at his words here? Exactly who are the bandwagon of criminals? He harassed this person repeatedly.


When this tactic did not work he tried extortion.


And Farrier wonders why no one will talk to him? His unethical methods got him nothing so he just made it up. Jordan Shillachi sold himself for $400. If he had held out he could have gotten $950. This is just some of the unethical behavior that made up this quilt of lies. This is the real David Farrier. A very good example of this fraudulent, sadistic coward occurred just last week in Cleveland. The person who interacted with Farrier in the above messages attended a screening of the documentary in Cleveland. Farrier recognized him and said hello before the screening. He was in the second row. When the documentary ended and Farrier did the Question and Answer segment this person was 10 feet from him. Did Farrier acknowledge his presence? Did Farrier let the audience know that a participant with direct knowledge was there? No. He acted like the coward he is and did not risk exposing his lies to the audience. I chose not to engage Farrier when I saw the documentary because I was there for gathering information and I was not interested in being part of a publicity stunt for Farrier. Given the chance now I would be on a plane tomorrow and confront Farrier and the Tool in a public forum in NZ and expose these cowards on their home turf for the lying sadistic cowards they are, but rats scurry and run.

“After the documentary is shown”

Farrier is running around the world acting like the savior of gay people. The reality is that he went right after the gay people who tried to communicate him that he was mistaken about many aspects of his approach. He reached right into their lives and tried to destroy them because they dared to tell the truth. Imagine someone going around the country and telling people that you are a criminal who is going to jail. As if he is your judge and jury. He is the classic example of you can tell he is lying because his lips are moving. He is a despicable human being who in his search for fame believes “The end justifies the means.” He is best described as “A lying piece of S**T. Needless to say I have just scratched the surface here. I will continue on a daily basis to add more to this story. He constantly says “stand up to bullies”. I’m standing! As I left the message at Sundance…..

Hello David. If you calculated that I would not stand up for the people who work for me you were mistaken. You have until now have had the stage to yourself. Not a moment longer. Unlike you I have the truth on my side. And as the saying goes “The Truth will set you free”. Now this can’t come as a surprise to the people of New Zealand. This can’t be the first time “Lying Farrier” has surfaced. I am sure there is a track record of unethical behavior, attempts to destroy people and lying. Your chickens will come home to roost. You wanted sunlight you have it. Sadly, you did not get the first rule of crawling out from under a rock, wear a lot of sun screen. This farce is over.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *