Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » GDP ordered to pay $13m to women
  1. Results 91 to 120 of 173
  2. Page 4 of 6
  3. First
  5. 2
  6. 3
  7. 4
  8. 5
  9. 6
  11. Last

Thread: GDP ordered to pay $13m to women

post 1594798701 01-03-2020, 06:18 AM
-
#91
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 27,542
  5. Rep Power: 292873
I'm not redpilled at all, but it's amazing how the women are taking no responsibility in this. Yes, the GDP guys were deceitful and sleazy ( no chit, they are in porn), but you have to be a moron to put yourself in that kind of situation in the first place. Yes the company was sleazy, but the women chose to put themselves in the situation. Nobody forced them to get fuked on camera.
6'1 - 240lbs

<HTC>
post 1594800581 01-03-2020, 06:57 AM
-
#92
  1. rjthegreat10
  2. Registered User
  1. rjthegreat10
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 2,223
  6. Rep Power: 14384
If anyone's seen that netflix documentary "hot girls wanted" you'll know the slooty mindset of these young porno girls, they want fame and easy money, the girls they followed on the documentary made like 50k in a few months but blew most of it on random material possessions.

LOL @ the GDP girls who when asked why they were there said some BS excuse like "I want to try something different" "I want to pay my college fees" In their heads it was more like "im a sloot who wants an easy $5k so i can buy clothes and other chit.
post 1594801941 01-03-2020, 07:24 AM
-
#93
  1. RazorM3
  2. Gonna make it
  1. RazorM3
  2. Gonna make it
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Posts: 4,310
  5. Rep Power: 32647
Originally Posted By JUGGERNAUT1333⏩
I'm not redpilled at all, but it's amazing how the women are taking no responsibility in this. Yes, the GDP guys were deceitful and sleazy ( no chit, they are in porn), but you have to be a moron to put yourself in that kind of situation in the first place. Yes the company was sleazy, but the women chose to put themselves in the situation. Nobody forced them to get fuked on camera.
they made a pact with the devil and got burned i have 0 sympathy for those hoes

bet if the videos were not posted online they would have had 0 issues

now that chit is online they know that no chad will date them
Samsbolton - 43 years of age:

*
post 1594802011 01-03-2020, 07:26 AM
-
#94
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
Originally Posted By JUGGERNAUT1333⏩
I'm not redpilled at all, but it's amazing how the women are taking no responsibility in this. Yes, the GDP guys were deceitful and sleazy ( no chit, they are in porn), but you have to be a moron to put yourself in that kind of situation in the first place. Yes the company was sleazy, but the women chose to put themselves in the situation. Nobody forced them to get fuked on camera.
Hilariously, page 140-142 of the judge's ruling explicitly addresses the controlling case law about morons, and points to the evidence presented that GDP intentionally targeted morons.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...rn-VERDICT.pdf

The bottom line in cases like this is that even if your contract is, itself, lawful, it doesn't follow that the marketing practices you used to find people to sign it were lawful, too,
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1594802441 01-03-2020, 07:34 AM
-
#95
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 27,542
  5. Rep Power: 292873
Originally Posted By RazorM3⏩
they made a pact with the devil and got burned i have 0 sympathy for those hoes

bet if the videos were not posted online they would have had 0 issues

now that chit is online they know that no chad will date them
Exactly, they aren't sorry they did it, they are sorry they got busted. At least have the balls to be like " Yeah I took 5K to get railed, no fuks given"
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
Hilariously, page 140-142 of the judge's ruling explicitly addresses the controlling case law about morons, and points to the evidence presented that GDP intentionally targeted morons.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...rn-VERDICT.pdf

lol u wot? Wow......

The bottom line in cases like this is that even if your contract is, itself, lawful, it doesn't follow that the marketing practices you used to find people to sign it were lawful, too.
6'1 - 240lbs

<HTC>
post 1594802671 01-03-2020, 07:38 AM
-
#96
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
Originally Posted By JUGGERNAUT1333⏩
lol u wot? Wow......
Basically, if you know someone is exceptionally gullible and mislead them anyway, you're on the hook. Seems to me this came down to the findings of fact, that the judge could have thrown out a lot of the claims made by the plaintiffs and still made a sound ruling in GDP's favor, but GDP threw away all their credibility as more and more stupid antics came out.

Rule 1: don't piss off the judge.
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1594802781 01-03-2020, 07:40 AM
-
#97
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 27,542
  5. Rep Power: 292873
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
Basically, if you know someone is exceptionally gullible and mislead them anyway, you're on the hook. Seems to me this came down to the findings of fact, that the judge could have thrown out a lot of the claims made by the plaintiffs and still made a sound ruling in GDP's favor, but GDP threw away all their credibility as more and more stupid antics came out.

Rule 1: don't piss off the judge.
Unreal. Talk about lack of personal accountability. Now sure how dumb you have to be in order to realize banging a stranger on camera isn't a good idea.
6'1 - 240lbs

<HTC>
post 1594803031 01-03-2020, 07:45 AM
-
#98
  1. aherpderp
  2. Verified 100% Straight ☑️
  1. aherpderp
  2. Verified 100% Straight ☑️
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 4,329
  5. Rep Power: 8474
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
Hilariously, page 140-142 of the judge's ruling explicitly addresses the controlling case law about morons, and points to the evidence presented that GDP intentionally targeted morons.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...rn-VERDICT.pdf

The bottom line in cases like this is that even if your contract is, itself, lawful, it doesn't follow that the marketing practices you used to find people to sign it were lawful, too,
Good find lol.
No glow No go crew
post 1594803621 01-03-2020, 07:59 AM
-
#99
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
Originally Posted By JUGGERNAUT1333⏩
Unreal. Talk about lack of personal accountability. Now sure how dumb you have to be in order to realize banging a stranger on camera isn't a good idea.
Yes, but on the other hand, it's a legal industry and the rules still apply. Plausible misunderstandings are different from intentional deception.

If a party has fraudulently misrepresented a document's contents or
induced the other party to refrain from reading the document, courts
will allow a remedy, choosing not to permit a positively fraudulent
party to prosper because of the stupidity or credulity of the defrauded
party, subject only to the rights of innocent third parties. In short, the
law should not give any assistance to a knave, a scoundrel or a con
artist who preys upon the less alert or more naive members of society.

The evidence that they knew they were seeking out morons who could be easily misled made it worse because it established their intent.
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1594805221 01-03-2020, 08:20 AM
-
#100
  1. Carbonfibre
  2. Rubber Banding
  1. Carbonfibre
  2. Rubber Banding
  3. Join Date: Aug 2010
  4. Location: State / Province, Canada
  5. Posts: 15,122
  6. Rep Power: 53107
read page 54.

Jane Doe 5.


she was 17 at time when they started grooming her.

they flew her in on her birthday to shoot video.

asked her to send nude pictures when she was 17 at time.


child pornography charges coming next...



these guys are one of the biggest scumbags


that is why that Pratt guy is on the run in New Zealand.


money laundering charges ie

they pissed off the tax man.


they are all going down hard.

and they deserve it.

..........

also they started that detoxing porn wikileaks site.

so they can threaten them

if they say anything they will release their info
post 1594805401 01-03-2020, 08:22 AM
-
#101
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 27,542
  5. Rep Power: 292873
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
Yes, but on the other hand, it's a legal industry and the rules still apply. Plausible misunderstandings are different from intentional deception.

If a party has fraudulently misrepresented a document's contents or
induced the other party to refrain from reading the document, courts
will allow a remedy, choosing not to permit a positively fraudulent
party to prosper because of the stupidity or credulity of the defrauded
party, subject only to the rights of innocent third parties. In short, the
law should not give any assistance to a knave, a scoundrel or a con
artist who preys upon the less alert or more naive members of society.

The evidence that they knew they were seeking out morons who could be easily misled made it worse because it established their intent.
This is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen. ............what a time to be alive.
6'1 - 240lbs

<HTC>
post 1594805881 01-03-2020, 08:27 AM
-
#102
  1. Fred87nc
  2. Rep Power: 431987
  1. Fred87nc
  2. Rep Power: 431987
  3. Join Date: Aug 2006
  4. Location: Mexico
  5. Age: 38
  6. Posts: 13,180
  7. Rep Power: 34354
Originally Posted By RocknRollMuscle⏩
they won't see a penny.

gdp can just declare bankruptcy and reform as a new company. It's not some brick and mortar company. That $13M will be settled by desperate lawyers for like $2M where they get $1.8M of it.

" Plaintiffs also allege fraudulent transfer as Defendants are believed to have transferred the videos and their funds overseas to hide assets."

though the child porn chages are much more an issue for the owners who are in prison. Unless judge ordered bank accounts seized - that money is probably offshore. In fact theyu're idiots if they keep their porn money in us bank accounts. That's like 101 stuff man.
Child porn sounds way worse than it actually is, it was a 16 year old sloot, r kelly pissed on a 16 year old and he came out fine. Sure having sex with a 16 year old is illegal in most states not all , but calling her a child makes it sound way worse than it actual is.
Yo yo yo I beez keepin it real since 02 fo real nowuimsayin

*ballin crew*

Quest to reach 8k before DartBoard.
**Beat Dartboard on quest to 8k on 05/21/2012 as the underdog.**
post 1594805981 01-03-2020, 08:29 AM
-
#103
  1. Fred87nc
  2. Rep Power: 431987
  1. Fred87nc
  2. Rep Power: 431987
  3. Join Date: Aug 2006
  4. Location: Mexico
  5. Age: 38
  6. Posts: 13,180
  7. Rep Power: 34354
Originally Posted By Carbonfibre⏩
read page 54.

Jane Doe 5.


she was 17 at time when they started grooming her.

they flew her in on her birthday to shoot video.

asked her to send nude pictures when she was 17 at time.


child pornography charges coming next...



these guys are one of the biggest scumbags


that is why that Pratt guy is on the run in New Zealand.


money laundering charges ie

they pissed off the tax man.


they are all going down hard.

and they deserve it.

..........

also they started that detoxing porn wikileaks site.

so they can threaten them

if they say anything they will release their info
Poor baby she was 17 when she sent out nudes, practically a child, how dare them.
Yo yo yo I beez keepin it real since 02 fo real nowuimsayin

*ballin crew*

Quest to reach 8k before DartBoard.
**Beat Dartboard on quest to 8k on 05/21/2012 as the underdog.**
post 1594806111 01-03-2020, 08:31 AM
-
#104
  1. jimbob007
  2. Keep The Red Flag Flying
  1. jimbob007
  2. Keep The Red Flag Flying
  3. Join Date: Mar 2007
  4. Location: From Anywhere He Darn Well Pleases, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 99,476
  6. Rep Power: 275015
Originally Posted By Fred87nc⏩
Child porn sounds way worse than it actually is, it was a 16 year old sloot, r kelly pissed on a 16 year old and he came out fine. Sure having sex with a 16 year old is illegal in most states not all , but calling her a child makes it sound way worse than it actual is.
Over here 16 is the legal age of consent. Until some point in the last 20 years or so it was common for 16 year old women to pose topless for Page 3 in our tabloid papers, until the government raised the age to 18.
post 1594806771 01-03-2020, 08:40 AM
-
#105
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
Originally Posted By JUGGERNAUT1333⏩
This is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen. ............what a time to be alive.
I mean, he's quoting "Williston on Contracts", a guide to contract law from the 1920s. There's nothing new here.

If you don't want to get caught deceiving the stupid for profit, it's as simple as not doing it.
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1594806921 01-03-2020, 08:42 AM
-
#106
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 27,542
  5. Rep Power: 292873
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
I mean, he's quoting "Williston on Contracts", a guide to contract law from the 1920s. There's nothing new here.

If you don't want to get caught deceiving the stupid for profit, it's as simple as not doing it.
I just think its a load of chit( I understand it's a real legal thing). Preying on someone with a mental disability or something is different, but this is not that. These are just dumb girls who wanted a quick dollar. Like I said, ANYONE with even 1/4 of a functioning brain would realize banging a guy on camera for money is a terrible idea. This country is a mess due to the lack of personal accountability with these kinds of things.
6'1 - 240lbs

<HTC>
post 1594807071 01-03-2020, 08:43 AM
-
#107
  1. alejo2308
  2. Registered User
  1. alejo2308
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2010
  4. Age: 32
  5. Posts: 1,348
  6. Rep Power: 5399
Originally Posted By LooksMaximus⏩
Was looking for more info on this and came across an in-depth article on xbiz.com that talks about the misc.

Actually pretty accurate JFL



https://www.xbiz.com/news/247515/her...rlsdoporn-case
"He has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often and loved much; who has gained the respect of intelligent men and the love of little children [...]"

*rep PR videos on sight*
post 1594807111 01-03-2020, 08:44 AM
-
#108
  1. fishnbrah
  2. Registered User
  1. fishnbrah
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2011
  4. Location: Arizona, United States
  5. Posts: 47,820
  6. Rep Power: 241736
the men who make porn are trash. the women they pay to be in the porns, are trash. end thread.
post 1594807391 01-03-2020, 08:47 AM
-
#109
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
Originally Posted By JUGGERNAUT1333⏩
I just think its a load of chit( I understand it's a real legal thing). Preying on someone with a mental disability or something is different, but this is not that. These are just dumb girls who wanted a quick dollar. Like I said, ANYONE with even 1/4 of a functioning brain would realize banging a guy on camera for money is a terrible idea. This country is a mess due to the lack of personal accountability with these kinds of things.
Except that personal accountability goes both ways. Had they not left a massive trail of evidence proving that they were doing this on purpose, it would be different.

The world is full of scam artists who are able to throw up their hands and claim they didn't know what was happening, and the courts can't do anything about it. When it's this brazen? You done goofed.
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1594807651 01-03-2020, 08:51 AM
-
#110
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  1. JUGGERNAUT1333
  2. Vin Diesel Brah
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 27,542
  5. Rep Power: 292873
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
Except that personal accountability goes both ways. Had they not left a massive trail of evidence proving that they were doing this on purpose, it would be different.

The world is full of scam artists who are able to throw up their hands and claim they didn't know what was happening, and the courts can't do anything about it. When it's this brazen? You done goofed.
I don't disagree with you. Scams are all over. Pyramid Scams, IRS scams.....some are hard to pick out. I'm sorry, but I have zero empathy for these girls. They knew what they were signing up for.... pornography. Whether it was being distributed overseas (which is a dumb argument, because the internet exists), or stateside is irreverent. You're still getting paid to have sex on camera. This wasn't a scam, was it dishonest and shady? Absolutely it was, I'm not claiming these guys are innocent, but getting fuked on camera for money = pornography.... no matter what way you spin it.

I am not letting the GDP guys off the hook, but these dumb girls are not innocent either.
6'1 - 240lbs

<HTC>
post 1594807731 01-03-2020, 08:51 AM
-
#111
  1. LooksMaximus
  2. Banned
  1. LooksMaximus
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Dec 2019
  4. Posts: 3,931
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
Yes, but on the other hand, it's a legal industry and the rules still apply. Plausible misunderstandings are different from intentional deception.

If a party has fraudulently misrepresented a document's contents or
induced the other party to refrain from reading the document, courts
will allow a remedy, choosing not to permit a positively fraudulent
party to prosper because of the stupidity or credulity of the defrauded
party, subject only to the rights of innocent third parties. In short, the
law should not give any assistance to a knave, a scoundrel or a con
artist who preys upon the less alert or more naive members of society.

The evidence that they knew they were seeking out morons who could be easily misled made it worse because it established their intent.
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
I mean, he's quoting "Williston on Contracts", a guide to contract law from the 1920s. There's nothing new here.

If you don't want to get caught deceiving the stupid for profit, it's as simple as not doing it.
Problem is that in this case apparently the entire female sex legally qualifies as "the stupid". As if they needed even more legal privilege and protection. This sets a very dangerous precedent. Have fun signing any kind of contract with a female and expecting it have any kind of legal binding from now on.

You: I have this contract here that says...

Judge: Females qualify as "less alert and more naive members of society" therefore any contract you sign that happens to benefit you more than them is NULL AND VOID, YOU HEARTLESS CHAUVINIST CAPITALIST KNAVE SWINE SCOUNDREL PIG!
post 1594808421 01-03-2020, 09:01 AM
-
#112
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Posts: 28,898
  5. Rep Power: 342064
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
Except that personal accountability goes both ways. Had they not left a massive trail of evidence proving that they were doing this on purpose, it would be different.

The world is full of scam artists who are able to throw up their hands and claim they didn't know what was happening, and the courts can't do anything about it. When it's this brazen? You done goofed.
What type of evidence did they leave proving that they did this on purpose? Not doubting you I just don't know all the facts
6'2"

OMAD results: 2/15/19-235, 10/13/19-190

OHP-205 Bench- 245 Squat - 405 C&J - 245

2021 Spring cut: 195lbs starting weight
post 1594808551 01-03-2020, 09:03 AM
-
#113
  1. propreffered7
  2. Registered User
  1. propreffered7
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Posts: 36,839
  5. Rep Power: 86393
Originally Posted By LooksMaximus⏩
Problem is that in this case apparently the entire female sex legally qualifies as "the stupid". As if they needed even more legal privilege and protection. This sets a very dangerous precedent. Have fun signing any kind of contract with a female and expecting it have any kind of legal binding from now on.

You: I have this contract here that says...

Judge: Females qualify as "less alert and more naive members of society" therefore any contract you sign that happens to benefit you more than them is NULL AND VOID, YOU HEARTLESS CHAUVINIST CAPITALIST KNAVE SWINE SCOUNDREL PIG!
Pretty much.

I think both should be punished

I think its stupid though, its basically rewarding stupid decisions. Brb make a porn film
Get paid a lump sum

Get paid even more lump sum when you regret it and want to pretend it never happened and act dumb

My guess is its more like.. A judge sees a somewhat shady, lucrative industry and wants to nail them because they can afford it
post 1594808641 01-03-2020, 09:04 AM
-
#114
  1. jimbob007
  2. Keep The Red Flag Flying
  1. jimbob007
  2. Keep The Red Flag Flying
  3. Join Date: Mar 2007
  4. Location: From Anywhere He Darn Well Pleases, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 99,476
  6. Rep Power: 275015
Originally Posted By fishnbrah⏩
the men who make porn are trash. the women they pay to be in the porns, are trash. end thread.
post 1594808661 01-03-2020, 09:04 AM
-
#115
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
Originally Posted By LooksMaximus⏩
Judge: Females qualify as "less alert and more naive members of society" therefore any contract you sign that happens to benefit you more than them is NULL AND VOID, YOU HEARTLESS CHAUVINIST CAPITALIST KNAVE SWINE SCOUNDREL PIG!
Except that's the only moving part.

The other is intent. If they didn't have a paper trail a mile long ago of fake references who they paid by PayPal and their own employees confirming the plaintiffs' claims at trial, they'd have been in an excellent position to say "LOL, we thought we did everything right".

There's really no precedent here. They were just singularly dumb scammers who got outed. There is, in fact, such a thing as a professional porn industry where the contracts are enforceable because the gig is on the up-and-up.

It sucks that they got rewarded with a(n uncollectible) multi-million dollar judgment as a prize for being stupid, but the facts are what they are.
Originally Posted By TBO1313⏩
What type of evidence did they leave proving that they did this on purpose? Not doubting you I just don't know all the facts
They recruited with bait-and-switch advertisements promising that it was just clothed modeling, then hired fake references and left a paper trail instructing them to lie about what shooting porn with them would be like. They also went to elaborate lengths to conceal their true identities to make it difficult to determine if they were lying, to determine that they owned GDP, and, later, to determine who to sue.

That, alone, is a criminal offense in New York, although I can't speak to California. Doing business under an unregistered assumed name is such an obvious indicator of intent to defraud that you can potentially be jailed for it all by itself.

They apparently brought people out promising larger amounts of money than they were willing to offer once they arrived in California, and purportedly became threatening if girls tried to back out. Obviously, they also lied about how the films would be distributed, although I think that's the least important aspect and the dumbest part. Interestingly, however, they were careful not to leave a paper trail about that part: whenever girls asked where the films would be distributed by email, they were asked to talk about it on the phone.
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1594809781 01-03-2020, 09:20 AM
-
#116
  1. LooksMaximus
  2. Banned
  1. LooksMaximus
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Dec 2019
  4. Posts: 3,931
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
Except that's the only moving part.

The other is intent.If they didn't have a paper trail a mile long ago of fake references who they paid by PayPal and their own employees confirming the plaintiffs' claims at trial, they'd have been in an excellent position to say "LOL, we thought we did everything right".

There's really no precedent here. They were just singularly dumb scammers who got outed. There is, in fact, such a thing as a professional porn industry where the contracts are enforceable because the gig is on the up-and-up.

It sucks that they got rewarded with a(n uncollectible) multi-million dollar judgment as a prize for being stupid, but the facts are what they are.
Who's to say that next time you'll also need to "have a paper trail a mile long" to prove intent? That's for the judge to decide. And this time the judge seems to have set a very unsettling precedent by declaring that all women -- and in particular prime women 18-24 -- qualify as "less alert and more naive members of society". This is like +50 to the super privilege powers of the modern female NPC.
post 1594810051 01-03-2020, 09:24 AM
-
#117
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
Originally Posted By LooksMaximus⏩
Who's to say that next time you'll also need to "have a paper trail a mile long" to prove intent? That's for the judge to decide.
No, it isn't. You have to have proof of each element of fraud to prove fraud. Proving the defendant's knowledge and intent are both separate elements of common law fraud.

As for their intelligence, we can't have it both ways. The dumbfukkitude of the plaintiffs was explored by the judge because it's obvious that this scheme required singularly stupid victims.

All GDP had to do here was do business the right way and they'd have still found some dumbfukks, but they took the easy way out and lost. Stupid games, stupid prizes.
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1594810111 01-03-2020, 09:25 AM
-
#118
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Posts: 28,898
  5. Rep Power: 342064
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
They recruited with bait-and-switch advertisements promising that it was just clothed modeling, then hired fake references and left a paper trail instructing them to lie about what shooting porn with them would be like. They also went to elaborate lengths to conceal their true identities to make it difficult to determine if they were lying, to determine that they owned GDP, and, later, to determine who to sue.

That, alone, is a criminal offense in New York, although I can't speak to California. Doing business under an unregistered assumed name is such an obvious indicator of intent to defraud that you can potentially be jailed for it all by itself.

They apparently brought people out promising larger amounts of money than they were willing to offer once they arrived in California, and purportedly became threatening if girls tried to back out. Obviously, they also lied about how the films would be distributed, although I think that's the least important aspect and the dumbest part.Interestingly, however, they were careful not to leave a paper trail about that part: whenever girls asked where the films would be distributed by email, they were asked to talk about it on the phone.
They probably were unfamiliar with contract law, like me, because I thought that the distribution lies were the part that would get them. I knew they were using scummy tactics but the bait and switch is supremely fukd up
6'2"

OMAD results: 2/15/19-235, 10/13/19-190

OHP-205 Bench- 245 Squat - 405 C&J - 245

2021 Spring cut: 195lbs starting weight
post 1594810291 01-03-2020, 09:27 AM
-
#119
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Posts: 14,613
  5. Rep Power: 136737
skeet em and yeet em on god
do not read my posts and weep, i am not there i do not sleep
i am the thousand greens that rep, i am the ban bet dutifully kept
of memes and trolls in toasted breads, i am not there, i am not dead.
post 1594810861 01-03-2020, 09:37 AM
-
#120
  1. chrsschb
  2. Techno Brah
  1. chrsschb
  2. Techno Brah
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 41
  6. Posts: 12,342
  7. Rep Power: 83349
Originally Posted By LooksMaximus⏩
Was looking for more info on this and came across an in-depth article on xbiz.com that talks about the misc.

Actually pretty accurate JFL



https://www.xbiz.com/news/247515/her...rlsdoporn-case
You know you've made it when a troll forum is taken seriously.
|| MFC || C7 Crew || Trance & Techno Crew ||
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts