Putting aside the whole "having sex on camera for money" bit, the more damning thing is how dumb she comes off as in the interview they did with her before the sex. She doesn't even remember her major.
Doesn't remember what she's studying and believes a porn producer who says a porn isn't going to end up on the internet: exactly the sort of person I want to hire as Head of Institutional Lending and put in charge of $300 million in assets.
Someone paid a LOT of money to go around submitting false DMCA claims (Jessica Khater is not the copyright holder of her porn film, GDP is) because I just looked it up online and it is deleted pretty much everywhere. I could probably find it on the web if I looked hard enough, but I just pulled up a torrent of GDP videos and got the screencap instead.
Her face is super ugly, but she's got decent tits. Apparently that's enough for a cryptosoy to trade her a fake job for pussy access.
I read that due to winning a lawsuit against GDP, whoever is filing these DMCAs is the owner of the video itself. It doesn't seem to me that this means that no image from the video may be displayed for the purpose of criticism or anything.
I just looked it up. It isn't really legal for a judge to do that, but the judge decided to be an activist. She justified it as "restitution". There were only 22 plaintiffs out of 402 total women. There was obviously no evidence as to the 380 women who were not parties. From a news article:
Friday’s decision is unusual for a number of reasons...“It awards the video rights to all known victims who filmed with GirlsDoPorn, not just the Does listed in the civil contract fraud case or those who sought restitution from Garcia,”
So that's illegal. The judge lacks jurisdiction under US law to make such an order. This is one of those circumstances where moral outrage results in "fuck the law WHOS GONNA STOP US??" and the answer is "no one". But if, for example, one of these roasties tried to sued me for copyright infringement and she was not a party, I could raise the defense that the judge's order was void for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore she was not the true copyright holder. I'd win if my judge followed the law.
It doesn't seem to me that this means that no image from the video may be displayed for the purpose of criticism or anything.
It is 100% obvious fair use to show screen shots of the roastie to point out she is a whore who took money to get fucked on camera. If a woman chooses to do porn, she accepts the risk of reputational damage following her around forever.
BTW, it appears that this girl may have been coerced by GirlsDoPorn into doing porn. Still, this is rather unseemly. I don't believe for a moment that such a con of a company cares about her, or anyone.
Yes “coerced” into believing none of their families would see it. Quit defended whores for being whores. They knew exactly what they were doing they just didn’t think they’d be caught.
The legal case was over them lying to women about the film distribution. They were aussies saying they would sell to aussies. There was never any real rape accusations unless you think Alyssa Milano was raped by Harvey Weinstein. If the gdp girls were “raped” then the word truly has no definition.
Well damn I never cared to look into and porn is retardedly sketchy so I assumed it was true. If they were really contacting people pretending to not be a porn company then I care even less that they got fucked over.
BTW, it appears that this girl may have been coerced by GirlsDoPorn into doing porn.
Nobody "coerced" shit. She did porn FOR MONEY. 99% of the girls who did girlsdoporn had 0 issues. The company used false advertisement to attract girls, but once the girls responded, they were told it was actually a porn solicitation and offered a lot of money. So any girls who accepted, consented, they were not "coerced".
A handful (out of many hundreds) made rape allegations. None of the filmed scenes were rapes. Instead, a few girls said they were raped off camera. I find this highly doubtful. It's far more likely that the girls simply regretted doing porn. It is well known, thanks to studies, that a few percent of girls are willing to make false rape allegations to take revenge on men who they feel have wronged them.
How do you get coerced into doing pornography for a site literally called girlsdoporn.com?
Don’t get me wrong, I would burn down the pornography industry in a day if I could, but if you don’t walk into that company expecting anything other than sexual activity being your job, then you’ve certainly hit the bottom of the barrel in deductive reasoning.
TL;DR: GDP defrauded, sexually abused performers, outright raped people, and violated multiple sex trafficking laws though their luring scheme and other actions such as blocking doors with camera boxes.
You can't lie about something that's literally visible.
So you believed an Oppressor Gender member?
It was a jury trial. The judge couldn't just impose her own will even if she had wanted to.
There were also female jurors.
If Amber Heard had won, 100% sure you'd be blaming the judge. Too bad I didn't ask you before the end of the trial. Now you've already adjusted your crazy to account for her loss.
Y'all debating whether she was coerced into porn or not, meanwhile, me wondering what the heck it matters she did porn and what it changes in regards to a Crypto company ?
Putting aside the whole "having sex on camera for money" bit, the more damning thing is how dumb she comes off as in the interview they did with her before the sex. She doesn't even remember her major.
Doesn't remember what she's studying and believes a porn producer who says a porn isn't going to end up on the internet: exactly the sort of person I want to hire as Head of Institutional Lending and put in charge of $300 million in assets.
Fuck this roastie.
Here is a screencap of her porn film.
Someone paid a LOT of money to go around submitting false DMCA claims (Jessica Khater is not the copyright holder of her porn film, GDP is) because I just looked it up online and it is deleted pretty much everywhere. I could probably find it on the web if I looked hard enough, but I just pulled up a torrent of GDP videos and got the screencap instead.
Her face is super ugly, but she's got decent tits. Apparently that's enough for a cryptosoy to trade her a fake job for pussy access.
I read that due to winning a lawsuit against GDP, whoever is filing these DMCAs is the owner of the video itself. It doesn't seem to me that this means that no image from the video may be displayed for the purpose of criticism or anything.
I just looked it up. It isn't really legal for a judge to do that, but the judge decided to be an activist. She justified it as "restitution". There were only 22 plaintiffs out of 402 total women. There was obviously no evidence as to the 380 women who were not parties. From a news article:
So that's illegal. The judge lacks jurisdiction under US law to make such an order. This is one of those circumstances where moral outrage results in "fuck the law WHOS GONNA STOP US??" and the answer is "no one". But if, for example, one of these roasties tried to sued me for copyright infringement and she was not a party, I could raise the defense that the judge's order was void for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore she was not the true copyright holder. I'd win if my judge followed the law.
It is 100% obvious fair use to show screen shots of the roastie to point out she is a whore who took money to get fucked on camera. If a woman chooses to do porn, she accepts the risk of reputational damage following her around forever.
That's totally fair. No obvious bias would ever appear in that set-up.
Something very fishy is going on. Here is another instance of Celsius (or Forbes, or someone) false DMCA'ing information about Jessica Khater.
https://twitter.com/cryptocoitas/status/1245161538727686144
So what was this? Nothing more than a screenshot of Forbes 30 Under 30.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220619103518/https://twitter.com/cryptocoitas/status/1245161538727686144
BTW, it appears that this girl may have been coerced by GirlsDoPorn into doing porn. Still, this is rather unseemly. I don't believe for a moment that such a con of a company cares about her, or anyone.
Yes “coerced” into believing none of their families would see it. Quit defended whores for being whores. They knew exactly what they were doing they just didn’t think they’d be caught.
Islam is right about women.
Sharia law states:
A woman testifying about a sex crime requires 4 male family members to testify with her before she can be believed
Weren't the gdp dudes like straight up raping women
The legal case was over them lying to women about the film distribution. They were aussies saying they would sell to aussies. There was never any real rape accusations unless you think Alyssa Milano was raped by Harvey Weinstein. If the gdp girls were “raped” then the word truly has no definition.
Well damn I never cared to look into and porn is retardedly sketchy so I assumed it was true. If they were really contacting people pretending to not be a porn company then I care even less that they got fucked over.
Nobody "coerced" shit. She did porn FOR MONEY. 99% of the girls who did girlsdoporn had 0 issues. The company used false advertisement to attract girls, but once the girls responded, they were told it was actually a porn solicitation and offered a lot of money. So any girls who accepted, consented, they were not "coerced".
A handful (out of many hundreds) made rape allegations. None of the filmed scenes were rapes. Instead, a few girls said they were raped off camera. I find this highly doubtful. It's far more likely that the girls simply regretted doing porn. It is well known, thanks to studies, that a few percent of girls are willing to make false rape allegations to take revenge on men who they feel have wronged them.
How do you get coerced into doing pornography for a site literally called girlsdoporn.com?
Don’t get me wrong, I would burn down the pornography industry in a day if I could, but if you don’t walk into that company expecting anything other than sexual activity being your job, then you’ve certainly hit the bottom of the barrel in deductive reasoning.
Well, they don't advertise themselves as "girlsdoporn.com". The porn companies never do. It's a shady industry.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6204915/Plaintiffs-Trial-Brief-3.pdf
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1890-criminal-complaint-sdca-sex-trafficking/3206b56cb9bb34834657/optimized/full.pdf
Found this on https://archive.ph/0q0o5
TL;DR: GDP defrauded, sexually abused performers, outright raped people, and violated multiple sex trafficking laws though their luring scheme and other actions such as blocking doors with camera boxes.
Whether the woman is one of the actual victims or some moron who erroneously did business with GDP is unknown, https://lumendatabase.org/notices/25216054
Imagine believing women after their "holding rapists accountable" movement was led by a pedophile.
Helped getting a female judge for the case, didn't it.
Fix was in.
Didn't you post an article written by an 'Oppressor' just a few days ago?
So you thought it was all lies, and you posted it anyway?
Yeah, just like with the Amber Heard case.
You can't lie about something that's literally visible.
It was a jury trial. The judge couldn't just impose her own will even if she had wanted to.
So you believed an Oppressor Gender member?
The woman literally admitted that she was an Antifa leader. There's nothing to believe, it's in writing.
I would have blamed jury selection, actually.
So you not only believe the writer of the article, you also believe the woman who said that she is an Antifa leader.
IMAGINE BELIEVING WOMANS!
It is written!d Well, you are a woman. Now that's in writing too.
LOL! Brilliant.
Yeah I bet she’s really good at… balancing the books.
Y'all debating whether she was coerced into porn or not, meanwhile, me wondering what the heck it matters she did porn and what it changes in regards to a Crypto company ?
Celsius, the one that went bankrupt?