Not that common to list them as a 3rd party defendant, publicly, which kind of loses the leverage if extorting him specifically for money is the goal.
At the end of the day the only people who have accused him of sexual abuse are people being sued for sexual abuse. No victim has actually said that Katz abused them. Due process is needed here.
It wasn't terribly difficult to gain access to the courtroom. I know 2 podcasters that reported on a lot of that trial, neither are with mainstream news outlets or have journalist accreditation and one of them is probably on many government lists for going over seas to fight with a militia group...the courtroom wasn't exactly Fort Knox (and watching 2 actors go at it on stand is more fun to people than watching a pedophile and her victims describe the sexual abuse).
That makes the proposed extortion of him for his money even less likely.
well, we don't know that he broke the law, yet. The victim has denied what the buttons said. Thats pretty concrete. You kind of have to take it at face value when the alleged victim claims nothing happened and isn't accusing Katz of anything. l
The folks who put his name on the 3rd party are the ones that stand accused. And their chief complaint was "the media coverage is hurting our business"
well, they do read creepy, but they were obviously cherry picked by the buttoms who knows what is said above and below the screenshots.
I've not convicted him, I've just stated my opinion of him allegedly involved in sex trafficking. He's a POS.
If he's paying $75k, he is financially supporting and encouraging sex trafficking.
So, the fact that me might have paid $75k to support sex trafficking doesn't disturb you at all, as long as he himself didn't "abuse" the individual being trafficked?
That 75k was for a film deal, as reported by this CBC article according to Katz and Humphries. I certainly take their word over that of the Buttons in this case, unless actually evidence comes out of a sexual relationship between Katz and Humphries (denied by both)
Yeah, and why would she need to keep that quiet if it was for a film deal? The texts don't line up with that.
The texts are cherry picked by the Buttons ( the people being accused here) who knows what is said above and below what has been released?
or, the media is just showing the relevant portion of the texts they have.
well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, not matter how not based in fact or evidence it is. I am finished on this topic with you. You have no evidence and when shown that the alleged victim denies these allegations from the Buttons, you continue to focus on them and only the Katz portion, not the Buttons, who these allegations are actually levied against, so that just tells me you aren't interested in an actually conversation and we are just wasting our time. If some real evidence or allegations actually come to light, I'll be back.
Prostitution is looked at as considerably less harmful than sexual exploitation of a child/minor. The latter has much harsher sentencing, as it should.
People judge others all the time based on social queues. This is a major social queue, being involved with a group of people behind sex trafficking. He's involved with them, that is known.
You need to distinguish the difference between a sugar daddy arrangement and sex trafficking. He didn’t exploit this woman, or illegally move her across state lines for sex.
You're not making him look any better here.
You’re not making any sense. Do you want to wrongly prosecute someone for sex trafficking because you are repulsed by sugar daddy/baby arrangements? Because that’s what you’re insinuating.
I'm not prosecuting anything. All i'm doing is calling him a POS and people are trying to defend him from my opinion.
