Youtube Slot Community and SlotLady

[JeffDime]

We see in politics that whenever someone doesn’t want to get into details they frequently use “I can’t comment further because there is an ongoing investigation”. Whether Sarah was being truthful regarding the FBI or not, it’s clear they didn’t want to get into specifics regarding the leaked photos/videos. Other than to say there was no consent and she trusted someone she shouldn’t have.

Then she says this about the FBI and basically gives the spiel about an “ongoing investigation” so she can’t comment further. Like there was some kind of gag order imposed on her lol. They may be using a gag in the future but in a very different way.

[NewGuy]

Just pure chatter but the leaks might have come from a youtuber/youtuber's circle who is also "sexually open" like Sarah and Victor. Yes, there's multiple slot youtubers who are into sharing partners and videos/images of their sexual acts. One of the people I've heard that might be involved in the weird slot sexuality community that developed was detailed in this thread, and no.... It's not EZ or Sister Christopher(though Sister knew about this before it exploded in the past 2 weeks).

[PositiveVariance]

I am not entirely convinced that Victor and Sarah didnt distribute these images themselves, but I will put this theory aside for now.

I am also going to put aside Jurisdiction (FBI), since I believe
there are many factors to determine this as well. I see many scenarios where the FBI could have jurisdiction, and just as many scenarios where the FBI wouldn't have jurisdiction. Also, whether or not they would even take the case on.

Obviously there are MANY factors, but I would like to just touch on a few.

Something I found very interesting is there are currently NO "Revenge Porn" laws, FEDERALLY. I was very surprised by this. Currently 48 states have revenge porn laws. The laws vary state to state. Some states it's a Misdemeanor, and in others a Felony.

Out of curiosity, I looked up where I live. I found an attorneys website where he wrote an article about it.


Here it is:

https://www.eezlaw.com/blog/2022/jul...ones-intimate/


Once again, this is one states laws. Potential offender could be anywhere.

As with any crime, there are certain elements that must be met in order for there to be a crime. In my state, 7 elements of the crime must be met. These are 3 that I believe could pose a significant problem to the prosecutions case and be the deciding factor if the crime occurred in the state of reference.

The first element that would be relevant is Element 5 of 7:

"They agreed with the person in the image that it would remain private"

This is important, if this element is not met, there is no crime. If Sarah agreed to be "Showered with Gifts" and in exchange gave this guy the pictures but did not give him specific instructions as to "keep these between us", this element does not appear to be met. It is also possible she DID tell him "keep these between us".

The second element that I find relevant is 6 of 7:

"They knew or should have known that distributing the depiction could cause serious emotional distress"

This one is interesting. I would think in the majority of cases this would apply. If the "Sugar Baby" theory is true, the person(s) that distributed these images could assume that she had distributed these images to many men and a decent attorney could argue that she was willing to provide these images to anyone that was "willing to pay", either directly or indirectly and therefore it doesn't meet the element of "causing serious emotional distress". On the other hand, if this happened to be just one romantic partner that she sent these images, this element could be met.

By her creating an Only Fans within hours of these pictures being put out, I think raises serious doubt of it "causing serious emotional distress". I think it would be VERY difficult to get a jury of 12 to agree that this element is met.


Element 7 of 7:

"The person depicted actually suffers from that distress"

Once again, I think the creation of an Only Fans immediately after, shows her state if mind.

Remember the above is one state of 48 with laws on the books.

The 2 states without Revenge Porn laws?
Massachusetts and South Carolina

As far as the person that offered EZ the pictures for $500. EZ said at that point he already had the photos sent to him by a few people. It would be my assumption that this person had received the pictures from someone else, and not from Sarah herself. It is possible he was the "Sugar Daddy", my guess is he was someone in a long chain that received them, and is just trying to make a quick buck.


The above I discussed is the CRIMINAL aspect. It is very possible that CIVIL laws may have been violated, more specifically Copyright. I have not researched the civil aspect, but like criminal, I am sure there are MANY factors o
In determining a violation.

Once again, I still lean towards Sarah and Victor distributing the images intentionally.

Obviously the FBI is supposed to look into every case that is presented to them, but there is simply not enough man power to do this. I think images that a girl willingly took of herself and most likely sent to a random guy(s), then was redistributed is very low on their priority list. Now if the person was a minor, or this was a hidden camera type situation, then I am sure that goes way up in priority.

Just my two cents.

[EZ Life Slot Jackpots]

Mission - The reason why I questioned the legality of their claims were that it wasn't just one person that was a ex lover. There were several men. Like I said in the video about 4 maybe 5 . So let's put that in perspective. If 5 reached out to me, how many more didn't? How many people were in possession of those photos/videos before they became public? How could they claim that the photos were being used against their consent when so many were in possession of them? Did they make all these people sign waivers/NDA's when she was sexting these images out? Are the photos and videos copyright protected? I don't pretend to be a lawyer but I do have common sense. The only part that I would think they have a leg to stand on is with the blackmailing of paying off this guy NOT to publicly release them. Now, if you go back and rewatch her video which was scripted as you can see she was reading off of her monitor. You will listen to her say that authorities were contacted because of the blackmailing she did allude that it was because of the actual content too but I took it more as because she was being blackmailed and I know for a fact she was. The guy is nuts, I had to block him which in doing so rid our whole conversation deleted so to go back to your words of advise it's a mood point because I no longer have the proof he wanted $500 from me. I don't even remember his user name. Do I believe they have any cases filed? No, I call BS. They have been a couple way before the channel even started. How do I know this? Well, her MOTHER commented on the video on facebook video calling me out. Her mothers facebook photos are public, photos date back years. Very happy couple for quite some time! Maybe even high school sweethearts. I appreciate you looking out for me, truly. But this ain't my first rodeo.

[bythecshour]

Does this strike you as someone who has suffered a major breach of privacy?

Their entire narrative is insulting to actual victims of revenge porn.

[PositiveVariance]

EZ, do you believe the "blackmailer" was one of the original men that she was a "Sugar Baby/Sexting" with, or a random dude that got them from one of the original dudes?

I'm not really sure it matters much, other than usually these "blackmailers" are over seas and really can't be caught or prosecuted due to jurisdictional issues.


Oh, and LOL @ Blackmailing them as they clearly only have cash 3 weeks out of the month.

[Mission146]

Mission - The reason why I questioned the legality of their claims were that it wasn't just one person that was a ex lover. There were several men. Like I said in the video about 4 maybe 5 . So let's put that in perspective. If 5 reached out to me, how many more didn't? How many people were in possession of those photos/videos before they became public? How could they claim that the photos were being used against their consent when so many were in possession of them? Did they make all these people sign waivers/NDA's when she was sexting these images out? Are the photos and videos copyright protected? I don't pretend to be a lawyer but I do have common sense. The only part that I would think they have a leg to stand on is with the blackmailing of paying off this guy NOT to publicly release them. Now, if you go back and rewatch her video which was scripted as you can see she was reading off of her monitor. You will listen to her say that authorities were contacted because of the blackmailing she did allude that it was because of the actual content too but I took it more as because she was being blackmailed and I know for a fact she was. The guy is nuts, I had to block him which in doing so rid our whole conversation deleted so to go back to your words of advise it's a mood point because I no longer have the proof he wanted $500 from me. I don't even remember his user name. Do I believe they have any cases filed? No, I call BS. They have been a couple way before the channel even started. How do I know this? Well, her MOTHER commented on the video on facebook video calling me out. Her mothers facebook photos are public, photos date back years. Very happy couple for quite some time! Maybe even high school sweethearts. I appreciate you looking out for me, truly. But this ain't my first rodeo.

It's honestly immaterial. It could be 2,000.

I'm not sure that for these individuals to share them freely would automatically be a crime; it's possible that it is not a crime. However, when one of those people offers you $500 to sell you the pictures/videos of Sarah and Victor that Sarah/Victor have the copyright to (assuming the individual offering to sell them did not take the pictures and/or did not receive a release from Sarah and Victor to use the pictures for commercial purposes), that is absolutely going to be an illegal act. I should imagine that it's more than a mere violation of copyright law, but at a minimum, it's a violation of copyright law. You can't sell copyrighted material that you don't own. The copyright owners of a picture are the subjects of the photo as well as the individual(s)/company who took the photo, unless there is something written stating otherwise, such as a release. You can't sell pictures shared with you without the other person's consent; it is possible that you can distribute them freely, in some cases.

Did this guy also try to blackmail them and you have knowledge of that, or are you hypothesizing that such may have happened?

Yes, if you take a picture you own the copyright to that picture. Even if you transmit a copy of that picture for free, you would have to give someone consent to attempt to commercialize that picture. If they sent a picture to 999,999 people who did not attempt to commercialize it, and the 1,000,000th person they sent it to did attempt to sell it, then #1,000,000 violated copyright laws; like I said, it's not even a legal gray area. They can only attempt to sell it with Sarah and Victor's permission to do so.

That's precisely the reason why stock image websites exist. Stock image websites exist because the people who created those pictures are specifically offering them for free and saying that they can be used for commercial purposes without the need to pay royalties. Can I go to a website that doesn't have stock pictures and has a copyright on the website and use their photos in order for me to profit? I cannot. If I can't do that with photos that are publicly accessible, and also not of questionable adult content, then how could I legally sell photos that weren't even accessible to the general public to begin with? I'd have to own the rights to the photos to do so, or alternatively, be given a release to do so.

As you mentioned with the waivers and NDA's, that's why I think freely sharing the images with you could well be a legal gray area. For all I know, you could share them (at no charge) with anyone you want to. You could probably even post them online at no charge as long as it doesn't fall under, 'Revenge Porn,' type laws...but I don't know anything about those laws.

I do understand a little bit about copyright laws, though, and that person attempting to sell them to you absolutely violated copyright law. There might be other laws they violated, particularly if they tried to blackmail/extort ACA with the photos.

Anyway, if you know for a fact that this guy not only blackmailed them, but also, attempted to sell you the images...I would expect to be contacted as a witness should the authorities actually look into this matter. Blackmail is some pretty serious shit and is generally a felony if this person was in the United States, so you might even have a mandatory duty to report that if this is something you know for a fact. You should really discuss this with an attorney, because I am not one.

I imagine the proof is stored in a database somewhere. You delete things and you cannot see them, but it's actually pretty rare for anything electronic to completely go away. If this was on some third-party website of some kind, then they might still have a record of it. If I were you, even if you think you destroyed the evidence, I would still talk to an attorney because you might have a mandatory duty to report a felony even if you don't have the evidence of it anymore.

I'm pretty familiar with mandatory duty to report felonies because I used to manage hotels. As I'm sure you could guess, hotels often have drugs in them, even from people who you would consider pretty normal people. Anyway, if someone was using anything or mentioned it, I always told them to keep it out of my sight because simple possession is a misdemeanor, so I don't have a mandatory duty to report that (in my state at the time), but if it's clearly a metric shit ton of drugs, then I would have a duty to report that, because of the amount.

Oh my God, I'd be calling the police on three rooms a day (usually weed) if I had to report every instance of illegal drug use.

Like I said, you should be able to consult with an attorney as to what you should do for free. I strongly recommend you do that and cover your bases. In the event this is ever actually investigated by law enforcement, I'd really hate to see it end up being anything more than an extremely minor hassle for you due to your involvement.

ADDED: There are also, 'Fair Use,' exceptions to copyright, but selling someone's nude pictures that were sent to you privately wouldn't qualify.

[Mission146]

I am not entirely convinced that Victor and Sarah didnt distribute these images themselves, but I will put this theory aside for now.

I am also going to put aside Jurisdiction (FBI), since I believe
there are many factors to determine this as well. I see many scenarios where the FBI could have jurisdiction, and just as many scenarios where the FBI wouldn't have jurisdiction. Also, whether or not they would even take the case on.

Obviously there are MANY factors, but I would like to just touch on a few.

Something I found very interesting is there are currently NO "Revenge Porn" laws, FEDERALLY. I was very surprised by this. Currently 48 states have revenge porn laws. The laws vary state to state. Some states it's a Misdemeanor, and in others a Felony.

Out of curiosity, I looked up where I live. I found an attorneys website where he wrote an article about it.


Here it is:

https://www.eezlaw.com/blog/2022/jul...ones-intimate/


Once again, this is one states laws. Potential offender could be anywhere.

As with any crime, there are certain elements that must be met in order for there to be a crime. In my state, 7 elements of the crime must be met. These are 3 that I believe could pose a significant problem to the prosecutions case and be the deciding factor if the crime occurred in the state of reference.

The first element that would be relevant is Element 5 of 7:

"They agreed with the person in the image that it would remain private"

This is important, if this element is not met, there is no crime. If Sarah agreed to be "Showered with Gifts" and in exchange gave this guy the pictures but did not give him specific instructions as to "keep these between us", this element does not appear to be met. It is also possible she DID tell him "keep these between us".

The second element that I find relevant is 6 of 7:

"They knew or should have known that distributing the depiction could cause serious emotional distress"

This one is interesting. I would think in the majority of cases this would apply. If the "Sugar Baby" theory is true, the person(s) that distributed these images could assume that she had distributed these images to many men and a decent attorney could argue that she was willing to provide these images to anyone that was "willing to pay", either directly or indirectly and therefore it doesn't meet the element of "causing serious emotional distress". On the other hand, if this happened to be just one romantic partner that she sent these images, this element could be met.

By her creating an Only Fans within hours of these pictures being put out, I think raises serious doubt of it "causing serious emotional distress". I think it would be VERY difficult to get a jury of 12 to agree that this element is met.


Element 7 of 7:

"The person depicted actually suffers from that distress"

Once again, I think the creation of an Only Fans immediately after, shows her state if mind.

Remember the above is one state of 48 with laws on the books.

The 2 states without Revenge Porn laws?
Massachusetts and South Carolina

As far as the person that offered EZ the pictures for $500. EZ said at that point he already had the photos sent to him by a few people. It would be my assumption that this person had received the pictures from someone else, and not from Sarah herself. It is possible he was the "Sugar Daddy", my guess is he was someone in a long chain that received them, and is just trying to make a quick buck.


The above I discussed is the CRIMINAL aspect. It is very possible that CIVIL laws may have been violated, more specifically Copyright. I have not researched the civil aspect, but like criminal, I am sure there are MANY factors o
In determining a violation.

Once again, I still lean towards Sarah and Victor distributing the images intentionally.

Obviously the FBI is supposed to look into every case that is presented to them, but there is simply not enough man power to do this. I think images that a girl willingly took of herself and most likely sent to a random guy(s), then was redistributed is very low on their priority list. Now if the person was a minor, or this was a hidden camera type situation, then I am sure that goes way up in priority.

Just my two cents.

Great post!

I think I knew or intuited that, 'Revenge Porn,' was very much a state-level thing, so that's why I went into copyright law. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that the person attempting to sell the photos committed a crime; the only possible exceptions would be if that person actually took (snapped/recorded) the photos/videos or was specifically given permission to attempt to sell them.

Because this person attempted to use the photos/videos to blackmail ACA, it is my conclusion that this person did not have ACA's permission to attempt to sell them. Even in the extraordinary unlikely event that they did give permission to sell those materials, they certainly didn't give the person permission to attempt to use them for blackmail.

As to your Fifth Element (Ha! Love that movie), the website you linked elaborates:

Consensual dissemination: The law states that it's an offense when the "persons agree or understand that the image shall remain private." However, the individual depicted in it might have consented to it being shared.

With that, there is room to argue for an implied understanding that the material would remain private. I would most likely suggest that if ACA is directly selling this material to individuals, then those individuals would intuitively gather that ACA does not want those individuals to share that content for free.

You said:

This one is interesting. I would think in the majority of cases this would apply. If the "Sugar Baby" theory is true, the person(s) that distributed these images could assume that she had distributed these images to many men and a decent attorney could argue that she was willing to provide these images to anyone that was "willing to pay", either directly or indirectly and therefore it doesn't meet the element of "causing serious emotional distress". On the other hand, if this happened to be just one romantic partner that she sent these images, this element could be met.

By her creating an Only Fans within hours of these pictures being put out, I think raises serious doubt of it "causing serious emotional distress". I think it would be VERY difficult to get a jury of 12 to agree that this element is met.

Right. The problem that you run into in this case is that it wasn't ACA being seen nude or committing sexual acts that caused the emotional distress; what caused the emotional distress was those materials being shared specifically with EZ Life so that he could make a video discussing the matter that would do harm to the reputation of the ACA channel. That would cause not only emotional distress, but as a civil matter, could also constitute an attempted tortious interference with a business relationship. In essence, the tortious interference with business relationship is because the people would be intentionally be doing damage to the relationship between ACA and Youtube; that said, it would be extremely rare to actually see a civil complaint brought for something like this.

Still, as it relates the people who offered the materials to EZ Life, the goal of offering those materials to EZ Life was to aid EZ Life in doing an exposé on ACA. The person sharing these materials (even freely) with EZ Life would know, or should know, that damaging the reputation of the ACA channel could be expected to cause both Sarah and Victor financial and emotional distress. The person who EZ Life says attempted to blackmail them was certainly aware of that prospect. I believe that even EZ Life alluded to the information coming out being the, "Final nail in the coffin," so there can be no doubt that the video was designed to harm the public reputation of the ACA channel.

Of course, EZ Life wouldn't have done anything illegal. However, if the people offering him those materials did so knowing that their doing so could cause reputation damage to ACA, and in fact, it was their goal to do so/they knew it was EZ Life's goal to do so, then I would say the revenge porn law cited above would qualify.

So, the OnlyFans thing only indicates that Sarah/Victor don't mind sharing what has already been put out there. However, it doesn't do anything to change that they (at the time) would have preferred these materials be kept private or, we would assume, they would already have an OnlyFans.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that if ACA were charging for these materials privately, that would automatically imply they don't want them to be shared with the public at no charge; how could it possibly imply anything else?

[ToneTree]

Has anyone considered this whole ACA OnlyFans business is just a troll by them to sucker folks who believe they can do this?

I wish I had screen capped the comment on their exposed vid, but someone left a "this is the greatest troll ever" comment on that video when it was first posted. That comment has since been deleted.

[Mission146]

Has anyone considered this whole ACA OnlyFans business is just a troll by them to sucker folks who believe they can do this?

I wish I had screen capped the comment on their exposed vid, but someone left a "this is the greatest troll ever" comment on that video when it was first posted. That comment has since been deleted.

I'd actually speculated that this might have been done in coordination with EZ Life, and that's still technically possible, but I doubt it more than I did a few weeks ago.

To be clear, I'd have had that possibility at something like 20%, at most.

[lck2000]

Has anyone considered this whole ACA OnlyFans business is just a troll by them to sucker folks who believe they can do this?

I wish I had screen capped the comment on their exposed vid, but someone left a "this is the greatest troll ever" comment on that video when it was first posted. That comment has since been deleted.

If it's a "troll" to put content online that'll live forever of you getting fucked and naked.... that's not winning at life, in any way.

[NewGuy]

Has anyone considered this whole ACA OnlyFans business is just a troll by them to sucker folks who believe they can do this?

I wish I had screen capped the comment on their exposed vid, but someone left a "this is the greatest troll ever" comment on that video when it was first posted. That comment has since been deleted.

My theory is that Victor and Sarah was involved in the Las Vegas and specifically the Las Vegas Casino Youtuber swinging club. Yes, there's an informal swinging club of certain creators and affiliated people who like to share partners/swap pictures/have sexual parties with each other. That's why I presume All Casino's Action is calling the FBI and one of the reasons I've been told that they went back to Canada(Victor losing money was another part of it). Vegas casino's are cagey with affiliating themselves with Adult entertainers specifically Onlyfans, Sarah and Victor are allegedly very pissed at the Las Vegas - I'll call them "Sexual Libertines" club - trying to allegedly blackmail them/share pics from the private vault.

Also, I can't confirm or deny anything but here are the youtuber's I'm almost certain are not part of that club:
Sister Christopher
EZ Slots
SD Guy
King Jason

Here's an alleged person involved according to my source:
Mr. Spyware
Sarah and Victor

[ToneTree]

Has anyone considered this whole ACA OnlyFans business is just a troll by them to sucker folks who believe they can do this?

I wish I had screen capped the comment on their exposed vid, but someone left a "this is the greatest troll ever" comment on that video when it was first posted. That comment has since been deleted.

I'd actually speculated that this might have been done in coordination with EZ Life, and that's still technically possible, but I doubt it more than I did a few weeks ago.

To be clear, I'd have had that possibility at something like 20%, at most.

Damn. I now have it at 0% having seen the evidence unfortunately.

It would have been much easier to kick Vic to the curb and go back to just Sarah on camera. And actually get some promo deals in place. If this is the path gambling leads you to, why would you do it? What casino marketing department is seeing this and welcoming these guys back? Looking at you El Cortez. Stop subjecting your dealers to Vic's abuses already.

[Dan Druff]

The FBI investigates a small percentage of reports they get.

As has already been mentioned by others, the blackmail part might have gotten their attention. It is possible that is being investigated.

However, if that's true, Sarah and Victor are quite stupid to start this Onlyfans so quickly, if they really want to see this guy punished.

It is very hard to sell the "victim of invasion of privacy" narrative when you're selling hardcore porn videos of yourself on Onlyfans. I have to think the FBI will lose interest once they notice that Sarah/Victor parlayed the situation into selling pornographic videos of themselves for profit.

In general, it is difficult to build a criminal case around an adult content creator being blackmailed with sexual images they were voluntarily selling to strangers online. Sure, blackmail is always a crime, but it's just looked at differently at that point. It would be a much bigger deal if Sarah were NOT selling pics/vids of herself in sexual situations, and then some freak got a hold of them somehow (even if he was sent them voluntarily), and then used them to blackmail her. But once you get into selling your sex life to the public, it's really hard to push the narrative that someone was holding intimate videos over your head.

Maybe I'll end up wrong here and someone will get prosecuted, but I doubt it.

[Mission146]

The FBI investigates a small percentage of reports they get.

As has already been mentioned by others, the blackmail part might have gotten their attention. It is possible that is being investigated.

However, if that's true, Sarah and Victor are quite stupid to start this Onlyfans so quickly, if they really want to see this guy punished.

It is very hard to sell the "victim of invasion of privacy" narrative when you're selling hardcore porn videos of yourself on Onlyfans. I have to think the FBI will lose interest once they notice that Sarah/Victor parlayed the situation into selling pornographic videos of themselves for profit.

In general, it is difficult to build a criminal case around an adult content creator being blackmailed with sexual images they were voluntarily selling to strangers online. Sure, blackmail is always a crime, but it's just looked at differently at that point. It would be a much bigger deal if Sarah were NOT selling pics/vids of herself in sexual situations, and then some freak got a hold of them somehow (even if he was sent them voluntarily), and then used them to blackmail her. But once you get into selling your sex life to the public, it's really hard to push the narrative that someone was holding intimate videos over your head.

Maybe I'll end up wrong here and someone will get prosecuted, but I doubt it.

It sounds like we agree more than we disagree.

It appears that you agree with my position that the OnlyFans wouldn't change the fact that blackmail is blackmail. As you mentioned, it might change the probability/to what extent a law enforcement agency is willing to look into it.

In this case, I honestly don't think it should. Let me play Devil's Advocate for a second:

It sounds like Sarah and Victor may well have been privately selling nude/sexual content of themselves in addition to having their Patreon and Youtube channel. Granted, there is a sort of, 'Trying to have it both ways,' element there in that you're trying to create the public perception that you wouldn't do that sort of thing.

However, I would also argue that the blackmailer would know that Sarah and Victor do not want these goods to become public (not to mention, free) for two reasons:

1.) If free, then that makes them more difficult to sell privately.

2.) Hurts the ACA brand image.

With that, in addition to violating copyright law with whomever they did sell them to (if ever successful), the blackmailer acts with a goal to not only subvert what ACA is trying to sell privately (the sex stuff), but is also acting, with deliberation and intent, to harm the ACA brand image.

Given that these materials were, in fact, released to the public and the brand image ultimately suffered (assuming that it hurt the image) for it, then it only makes sense that they would do an OnlyFans. For one thing, they were (presumably) selling these materials privately anyway. Secondly, any brand damage that was going to be done had already happened, so that becomes moot. Finally, it is unlikely that they would be able to keep an eye on all possible websites where the sexual content might be posted, so even if they had gotten it removed, it could just be put up again/put up on other outlets.

For most women, the problem would be the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of these materials being released in the first place. However, you have to stop looking at the situation in that typical context. If they were already privately selling these materials, then there is no shame, humiliation or embarrassment, and arguably, never was. In fact, they were probably able to get a premium selling this stuff privately given that, unlike OnlyFans, it wasn't necessarily available to the general public.

With the blackmail, the problem is not just the blackmail itself, but the clear intent to harm the ACA brand reputation, thereby causing, or attempting to cause, financial and emotional distress. In my opinion, that's why it should be taken seriously. The blackmailer was attempting to blackmail them with the threat being the blackmailer making public materials that were intended for private sale, as well.

I also doubt that it will be prosecuted.

I still find the exposé a little bit ironic. The reason that I find it ironic is because the blackmailer, clearly, is a much bigger piece of shit than Sarah and Victor could ever hope to be. I'd also suggest that anyone who shared the images/videos with EZ Life with the hope and intent of the ACA channel being taken down are also likely to be pieces of shit, but not as much as the blackmailer is, obviously.

With exception only to perhaps EZ Life himself, Sarah and Victor actually seem to be the least of all evils involved in this mess.

[1dollarboxcar]

@Mission146 ^^^^ from above statement ^^^ .... you took this full, hook, line, and sinker.... there is no " black mailer " there is no " investigation"
by any Law Enforcement Agency.... the real pieces of shit are Victor and Sarah.... and in my eyes Victor is the bigger piece of shit... he's the one that probably sold these private videos and pics without Sarah's knowledge.... to support his degenerate gambling addiction.... and once they " leaked "

he had to save face with some concocted story about a " black mailer " and FBI " investigation " they are degenerate gamblers that got caught doing
degenerate things.... and i suspect the train hasn't fully gone off the rails yet.... in other words, there is no invisible boogie man.... and there is no invisible " knight in shining armor " to come save the day ( FBI ) this was all brought on all by themselves.... and try to shift the blame to someone else.....

[Mission146]

@Mission146 ^^^^ from above statement ^^^ .... you took this full, hook, line, and sinker.... there is no " black mailer " there is no " investigation"
by any Law Enforcement Agency.... the real pieces of shit are Victor and Sarah.... and in my eyes Victor is the bigger piece of shit... he's the one that probably sold these private videos and pics without Sarah's knowledge.... to support his degenerate gambling addiction.... and once they " leaked "

he had to save face with some concocted story about a " black mailer " and FBI " investigation " they are degenerate gamblers that got caught doing
degenerate things.... and i suspect the train hasn't fully gone off the rails yet.... in other words, there is no invisible boogie man.... this was all brought on all by themselves.... and try to shift the blame to someone else.....

I can't imagine that Victor and Sarah would still be together if he had sold their sexual images and videos without her knowledge and/or consent, though I suppose stranger things have happened.

Anyway, EZ Life claims to know that there was a blackmailer and that blackmailer was likely the same person who offered to sell him (EZ Life) the pictures and videos. It honestly gets a little bit old to have to give a qualifier every time I type a sentence, but in this thread, you can take anything I say as having, "Accepting x, y or z, as true," before it.

I don't know what the truth is and I simply assign probabilities to how likely I think that something is the truth. I think that it's about 50% likely that Sarah/Victor were sharing and/or selling these things privately and wouldn't have wanted them shared. I'm also 50/50 on whether or not someone tried to blackmail them.

Blackmailers are usually idiots and this case would be no exception. Anyone would be smart enough to know the blackmailer wouldn't keep their word or destroy/delete whatever of these pictures/videos they had. They'd also just keep going back to the well (which anyone should realize and I think Sarah and Victor would be smart enough to realize) until ACA stopped letting them draw water from it.

Anyway, EZ Life says there was a blackmailer, in his opinion. Do I strictly believe that? No. However, given that Sarah and Victor look worse if there is not a blackmailer, I don't think EZ would claim that there is a blackmailer if he doesn't think there was one as his goal is for Sarah and Victor to look bad.

EDIT: EZ Life said above that he, "Knows for a fact," that Sarah, specifically, was being blackmailed. It's in his post above. That brings me from 50% to 60% probability of truth that Sarah was blackmailed. If she wasn't, then that points to EZ Life being in on the whole thing from the very beginning, which I was 25% on, but am now about 10% to be the case.

[Mission146]

Having Sarah be the exclusive face of the channel for many years was really smart. lol

[bythecshour]

@Mission146 ^^^^ from above statement ^^^ .... you took this full, hook, line, and sinker.... there is no " black mailer " there is no " investigation"
by any Law Enforcement Agency.... the real pieces of shit are Victor and Sarah.... and in my eyes Victor is the bigger piece of shit... he's the one that probably sold these private videos and pics without Sarah's knowledge.... to support his degenerate gambling addiction.... and once they " leaked "

Yep.

These two have been lying and dissembling from the start. Pretending Sarah knew anything about slots (she admitted Victor taught her everything), creating a female moderator Jenny (who no longer exists and was most likely Victor), pretending she "hired Victor as an employee" for his gambling knowledge, pretending they were going to bring on additional content creators and do collabs (lol), insisting over and over when asked that they were just friends and business partners. On an on it goes. Take a look at the title of their latest Vegas livestream SLOT AND VIDEO POKER LIVESTREAM. There were no slots yet the title is still up. Victor obviously had no intention of playing slots. He lost his 1k bankroll in a half hour smashing video poker, while people in the chat inquired about when there would be slot play. Taking anything they say at face value is just plain silly. With their track record of lying, I believe 0% of what they say and don't see the value in if/then probabilities.

Watch the recent livestream and tell me if you believe his "apology" (during the ACA Exposed video) for endlessly complaining about his bad luck, given that he is actually so #blessed to be with Sarah (and supposedly other beautiful women lol)

Degenerate gamblers will do anything for money. Their channel (views, subs) has been going down the tubes. I wouldn't put it past Victor to leak anything with or without Sarah's knowledge. And if you don't think they'd still be together if she found out, you underestimate her unsavory and weak character as much as his.

[JeffDime]

You never know with these two, but quickly skimming the livestream they had in Vegas last night they are talking about more members only (not the jacket) streams. This makes sense to me with the Only Fans having such a high price point. I would need PV to do the math, but I would think they want to try and grow and keep that income going above all else. I think they will plateau & even fall off soon, but we shall see. Not sure the simps appetite for another Cream Pie will keep them forking $50 a month for too long.

Their YouTube channel has certainly stalled out over the last year or so, so I think milking their existing simps to the max is the #1 priority for sure. We’ll see if they keep to their word. They certainly can be just telling the “members” they will be having more exclusive streams and just hang them out to dry as usual.

Main thing is fading eternal damnation. They are betting big there is either no God or if there is he has chilled out bigly since the whole Sodom and Gomorrah fiasco.

I wish them well. Noble work their doing.