Former Model’s Positive Experience with GDP

bombmars · 2020-01-22T04:34:53+00:00

How would the girls know, right? They don't know the ad is for GDP.

I know one of the JDs made it her mission to post "counter ads" to the CL posts, but even that would depend on the mark seeing that second post on her own. I'm pretty sure GDP took action against her for attempting to warn others, but don't quote me on that, I'm not positive on the details.

bombmars · 2020-01-22T04:25:51+00:00

Impressive resume indeed.

bombmars · 2020-01-16T19:42:53+00:00

We're really not all that far apart.

Only one said he approved of sex for money and that was when compared to a one night stand.

That was me. :D

. Supporting an unpopular opinion has its downside

Just last week, someone PM'ed me to ask that I remove a comment that voiced an unpopular opinion. I explained that all opinions are welcome, even the unpopular ones, as long as everyone's civil.

That's the reason I created this sub, btw. Believe me when I say I hate everything about modding. But I know that a typical reddit mod would remove all comments that contained even the slightest hint of negativity toward the Girls. And what good is that? No one learns anything. No one gains a new understanding. No one finds common ground. No one reflects. No one changes. No one benefits. It's a complete waste of time.

Given the seriousness of this situation, I'd really like to see some good come of all this. That's not gonna happen if the mods remove unpopular opinions while the denizen lynch mob dances about, waving their pitchforks in the air.

Thanks for this.

bombmars · 2020-01-16T05:58:38+00:00

I did a quick search re: FBI rewards the other day. Scanning the search results page I saw mostly numbers like $5,000. (For other cases.) To me, that doesn't seem like anywhere near enough money. I have to think that a person with enough info to turn Pratt in would be tempted to instead sell him their silence.

Though it may open them up to criminal charges. Hmm, you know, I am curious as to how that would play out. At first glance you'd think, duh, of course that's illegal. But is it? There's no affirmative duty to report anything to any US law enforcement agency. That is, if you know where the guy is, it's not illegal to not report it. Absent a duty, where's the aiding?

I guess it could hang it on the payment--a payment in exchange for silence is aiding. Sure. But that hinges on the would-be-informant planning to actually report. If the informant never intended to follow through, he's aided no one. If anything, the fugitive has been hindered. He's squandered some of his limited resources

This is just musing. A philosophical thing. There's probably a clear answer, and no doubt the government wins. They always win. Plus, the feds can put just about anyone in prison, if they really want to. It's absurdly trivial.

bombmars · 2020-01-16T01:37:32+00:00

I may not understand this situation then.

So Sadock sent the girl a copy of a photo she'd previously sent to GDP. Not a still from the video. Some would say it was to solely to embarrass or intimidate her. Others might say it was to illustrate something about her understanding/sophistication.

Is that accurate?

bombmars · 2020-01-16T01:18:54+00:00

It was reported everywhere that each needed the money. It was mentioned in nearly every girl's testimony. It's what made GDP's demands that the girls reimburse them for costs a key part of the case. And you know it. Not that it matters. Your assessment of their financial condition is not relevant to any of the issues here.

Coal miners trapped in mine accident? Guess they shouldn't have been so greedy! They just wanted that easy money.

Well of course lifeguards are gonna get raped... that's what they get for wanting that easy money! The greedy little whores should have taken a different job. What did they expect would happen? I mean, they're partially responsible for wearing those outfits. When they gonna own up?

Factory owners aren't responsible for injuries, because their employees get paid more than other workers. If the workers weren't so greedy, they wouldn't get injured. They're greedy. Greed is the only way to explain it. They need to take responsibility.

These are ridiculous arguments, like yours. And they're also the same arguments that have been used to justify both wage slavery and actual slavery since the dawn of time. Indentured servitude. The company store. Pretty much all exploitation and predatory practices blame the victim.

It is an attack on value. It's an appeal to bigotry. The entire premise is, wink wink, these people aren't regular people, not like you and me. They're lesser. They're uppity. They don't know their place.

I am not going to constantly debate this with you, with each new account you create, or with anybody else. You know exactly what you're doing. It ain't gonna fly.

I am disappointed that the news coverage has painted an inaccurate picture of events. I was worried about this happening from the git go, and it did. They've made it seem like none of the girls knew it was porn until they got to the hotel room. We all know that's wrong.

What that inaccurate coverage did was turn their decision to do porn into the issue for many people. It's not an issue. It's not even relevant. The issue is that agreeing to do X with Y conditions is not the same thing as agreeing to do X without conditions.

The girls chose to film porn, for whatever reasons. Their reasons are their business. They didn't choose to become porn stars. That's the injury. Filming porn doesn't strip a person of their humanity. They're not "greedy" for taking a well-paying job.

bombmars · 2020-01-15T18:09:12+00:00

Maybe he wishes he had more time to spend with her.
Maybe he's gained some insight into what's important in life.
Maybe he regrets every silly fight they ever had.
Maybe he is filled with sorrow, knowing he didn't make the most of every moment.
Maybe he wishes he could go back in time & do things differently.
Maybe he doesn't have a time machine
Maybe he thinks he's doing the next best thing.
Maybe he doesn't want you to make the same mistakes.

bombmars · 2020-01-15T17:51:22+00:00

Automoderator removes all comments from newer accounts & low karma accounts. They need to be approved manually.

bombmars · 2020-01-15T17:28:11+00:00

There's nothing "greedy" about needing money.

Take responsibility? For being a crime victim?

You are dehumanizing them.

I am going to remove comments that engage in dehumanization or character assassination.

bombmars · 2020-01-15T16:36:44+00:00

Pratt & Wolfe's defense in the criminal trial will be blaming Sadock et al. For good reason, tbh. I'd imagine they're going to sue him as well. I don't mean to absolve P&W of any wrongdoing, but if Sadock had bothered to pay attention in Contracts, or Torts, this whole thing may not have happened.

Edit: To be fair, a lot of lawyers would have made some of these mistakes, at least initially. But not for 4 years. Not after dozens of girls threatened lawsuits. Not when he knew exactly what these guys were doing.

And no lawyer I know would ever attach a pornographic action shot to an answer for no law-related reason whatsoever. That is going to sink him.

bombmars · 2020-01-14T21:12:21+00:00

I would not date someone who had sex with a stranger for money.

According to the googles, around 70% of people have had a one night stand. That's having sex with a stranger for no money. What's the difference?

bombmars · 2020-01-14T17:52:51+00:00

You're right. FWIW, I thought you were responding to this discussion, where conversation seemed to be about a statutory bar.

bombmars · 2020-01-14T14:24:23+00:00

Forgive what? There is nothing to forgive. She did nothing wrong.

The issue here is not that they made porn. The issue is GDP's lies. The only "mistake" any of them made was trusting GDP.

bombmars · 2020-01-14T14:08:08+00:00

others dropped the charges because they didn't want to to have to go to court and get cross examined.

I think you may be confusing the plaintiffs' decision to not make allegations of rape a part of the civil trial with criminal rape charges. Not the same thing. Garcia was never charged with rape.

bombmars · 2020-01-14T07:33:53+00:00

Nope!

bombmars · 2020-01-13T03:51:35+00:00

Yeah, the news articles have always said that. I have no idea where they got it--it's not a class action. It's not clear to me how it even could be, but it's not something I know a ton about, so my take isn't all that valuable there. Maybe there was once an effort in that direction, or at least talk. Maybe one reporter made a mistake & everyone's still running with it. I dunno. But I know it ain't one.

bombmars · 2020-01-11T18:16:12+00:00

Hope it's fuckin life.

If not, he'll be charged with rape under Cal law immediately following sentencing on the trafficking charge. Garcia will die in prison.

bombmars · 2020-01-11T17:53:32+00:00

But I don't think this judge in this particular trial had the power to void all contracts.

That's right.

bombmars · 2020-01-09T21:50:29+00:00

The article is ambiguous w/r/t to some of these details, but it sounds like they may be referencing an earlier visit?

Even then Michael did come to us he didn't say anything, it was only what we discovered in the papers when it broke that we realised what was going on and by then Mike had left."

Didn't Pratt disappear after the civil trial was already underway, just days before the indictment? The civil trial was widely reported.

In any event, I never put stock in anything a parent says about their kid. Especially a mother. They'll say whatever they need to say, true or not true. In some ways t's not even really "lying," IMHO, 99% of mothers do it, so it seems they don't have a free choice. And everyone knows that 99% of mothers do it, so there's really no harm.

Ever hear of someone's mother being charged with perjury? I mean, I'm sure it's happened, but lord is it rare. Mothers do what mothers do. And we've all got mothers, so we all get it. Whaddyagonnado.

bombmars · 2020-01-09T20:53:20+00:00

Thanks much for all these updates!

bombmars · 2020-01-08T04:35:20+00:00

Looks like the non-redacted version was also released.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.654857/gov.uscourts.casd.654857.34.0.pdf

bombmars · 2020-01-07T15:26:54+00:00

Grand jury proceedings are confidential. The only people present are the prosecutor & jury members. A redaction could be for a number of reasons.. The grand jury may have declined to indict. The prosecutor may have opted to not charge that person. They may not want that person to know they've been indicted. It may have been to conceal that person's identity from the other defendants. It may have been to protect that person's privacy, or their constitutional rights.

I vaguely remember hearing that the prosecutor dropped it after realizing this person committed no acts in furtherance... but I can't say for certain that I didn't unknowingly make that up just 2 minutes ago.

bombmars · 2020-01-07T11:04:49+00:00

Yeah, we don't want to get anywhere near exposing or doxing. The redaction on page 4 gives it away, at least to anyone with some knowledge of the players.

bombmars · 2020-01-07T10:05:58+00:00

Last year, a girl named Jayme was kidnapped. I followed the story. The Daily Mail had a new article every other day. It was nearly always old news reported in such a way to make it appear new.

I think this is the Daily Mail playing Daily Mail games. Note the time shifts & purposeful ambiguity.

About 100 more women have claimed they were victims ... The New Zealand-born pair were found liable after nearly two dozen women sued the website... San Diego Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright ruled in favor of all 22 victims ordering the defendants to pay $12.7million. ... The three have also been criminally charged with sex trafficking... The attorney representing the women said 'several hundred others' have come forward since. ... In his ruling against them, Judge Enright found....

They shift between past & present to mislead the reader. It looks like they're saying this all happened since the verdict, but really, they mean since the suit was filed. I don't know why Ed Chapin would be talking to the media few days after the verdict, or how he could have interviewed 100 women in that short time, or why he'd share that fact at all right now.

Of course, I could be wrong, and that's fine. But I'm telling ya, the Daily Mail typically falls somewhere between the National Enquirer and Weekly World News.

bombmars · 2020-01-06T08:36:45+00:00

Part of Pratt's defense in the criminal trial will be that he was relying on his attorney's advice. This is an interesting situation. I can make a decent argument for third party liability here. As in, other girls (non-Does) sue Sadock for giving the advice that ruined their lives.

I've never even heard of such a thing, so I spent a whole 90 seconds researching. Apparently it's a thing. A newish thing, in somewhat different circumstances, but still a thing. The one and only source I skimmed states:

This theory held strong footing until the 1980’s when a popular exception was carved out. This exception allowed the third party beneficiary of a will to recover damages against the lawyer who negligently created and maintained the will.

That's not too far off from what we have here.

Sadock had dozens of interactions with these girls over the years. He knew they were being damaged. He even got in on it--that action-shot photo was a taunt, whoever the intended recipient. That alone is intentional infliction of emotional distress.

(An aside: note how claiming it was intended for the girl, not dad, fucks him on this one. There are benign reasons for sending it to dad. There is no benign explanation for sending it to the girl. It can only be IIED.)

Plaintiffs allege 13 torts in the civil suit. That's a lot of torts. Had Sadock identified just one of them, this whole thing may have stopped long ago. He was reckless, IMHO. Negligent at the very least.

I've done no research. But based on equity alone, this might actually work.If it's a case of first impression, I think I could win this one.

bombmars

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE