"But as you can see in my pricing scheme here your honor, it explicitly states 'no oral'. Therefore the defendant's insinuation that I sucked dicks for money is defamatory. Gape pics and findom are clearly materially different services."
It's very funny to me that the entire case may end up hinging on a debate about whether selling pictures of herself blowing a dildo constitutes the legal definition of "sucking dicks for money"
I hope he can have the jurisdiction in anywhere BUT New York or California as both of those states are so retarded that could be an actual successful argument!
She has referenced being a sex worker several times. She is now trying to say she was only a cam girl (probably because she realized she that prostitution is illegal), but she also made this tweet referencing getting fucked for money: https://archive.md/mqxac
Didn't she complain herself that she might have to back to being a whore to pay bills so confirming by personal testimony she WAS a whore previously?
Exactly. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
"But as you can see in my pricing scheme here your honor, it explicitly states 'no oral'. Therefore the defendant's insinuation that I sucked dicks for money is defamatory. Gape pics and findom are clearly materially different services."
It's very funny to me that the entire case may end up hinging on a debate about whether selling pictures of herself blowing a dildo constitutes the legal definition of "sucking dicks for money"
I hope he can have the jurisdiction in anywhere BUT New York or California as both of those states are so retarded that could be an actual successful argument!
She has referenced being a sex worker several times. She is now trying to say she was only a cam girl (probably because she realized she that prostitution is illegal), but she also made this tweet referencing getting fucked for money: https://archive.md/mqxac