"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!
"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!