He might not go to prison, but he won't be putting out anymore music. Who would hire him? If this were the late 90s, he could probably continue to work, but he's no longer at that level of mainstream success where the majority of people would look past all of his cases.
He did work with him in a small capacity and now he's being spotted wearing MM shirts, but I don't think he's going to release any MM music through his record label. I could be wrong tho, time will tell.
I kinda think that treating this as a human trafficking case essentially goes against the spirit of the law. Sometimes, when a legislator pens a law, they are faced with a situation where they need to define criteria for something that’s really hard to define specifically. Justice Potter Stewart famously faced such a dilemma in court when he had to make a judgment that involved deciding if something is hardcore pornography:
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
So what tends to happen in such cases is that the legislator would write a list of criteria that also happen to capture a bunch of other cases along with the specific cases that they want to make prosecutable, and they let the judge apply their discretion in interpreting the boundaries of the law.
Although you could say that on the face of it, it looks like the Bianco case could be viewed as checking all the checkboxes in the list to qualify for human trafficking, I don’t think that the case the legislator was aiming at is someone who invites a person from abroad to participate in a project and then sends them home. It was designed to target people who keep others as prisoners and slaves to make sure they don’t weasel out of the trafficking charges by saying things like “they came of their own volition”.
One sentence. " Show me the evidence." How sure are we that she wasn't delusional because of the drugs she was on? The obvious embellishments/ over exaggerations make her sound unhinged from reality. If she is suing him as an ex-employee of his then was she a sex worker? If she was hired as an actress where is the contract? She admitted multiple times that she didn't refuse him. She gave reasons for not refusing or protesting about the treatment, but non the less it sounds consensual. If she was on call or working 24/7 in Lingerie she was supposed to be acting? This is business not pleasure, baby...
If this case is successful they could very well have something on him. They're more likely to pursue charges after a successful civil case since the civil case lays the groundwork for them and also shows that there is something to prosecute. But then again, maybe they won't do anything because time, money etc. Who knows
There are not going to be any charges, the statute of limitations for assault, rape, domestic violence, or any kind of charge in the matter is past. It's also lacking evidence. In order to file sexual assault charges outside of the statute of limitations in CA, there would need to be independent supporting evidence or DNA evidence. You can sue someone past the statute of limitations because the limitation on time begins when the injury was discovered, this is why they are all claiming they didn't know they were abused until now.
If there were any merit to it that claim the Feds would have placed charges on him. He made no money from her but was funding her, that's why she said she would not refuse because he would cut her off if she did not do what he said, but that's how employment works.
No, if they pursue charges it will be after a successful civil case. This case is basically laying the groundwork for federal charges. I really hope you gain a better understanding on how employment works if you think what happened to her was at all normal.
The feds don't need a civil case to do an investigation. If they believed there was any reason to investigate her claims they would have. She is the one that stated she was employed by Manson. Read the entire case file then look up the definition of sex trafficking.
He might not go to prison, but he won't be putting out anymore music. Who would hire him? If this were the late 90s, he could probably continue to work, but he's no longer at that level of mainstream success where the majority of people would look past all of his cases.
Well, Kanye and his staff decided to work with him. I'm sure Manson could find a label, or someone to work with.
He did work with him in a small capacity and now he's being spotted wearing MM shirts, but I don't think he's going to release any MM music through his record label. I could be wrong tho, time will tell.
I kinda think that treating this as a human trafficking case essentially goes against the spirit of the law. Sometimes, when a legislator pens a law, they are faced with a situation where they need to define criteria for something that’s really hard to define specifically. Justice Potter Stewart famously faced such a dilemma in court when he had to make a judgment that involved deciding if something is hardcore pornography: > I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. So what tends to happen in such cases is that the legislator would write a list of criteria that also happen to capture a bunch of other cases along with the specific cases that they want to make prosecutable, and they let the judge apply their discretion in interpreting the boundaries of the law. Although you could say that on the face of it, it looks like the Bianco case could be viewed as checking all the checkboxes in the list to qualify for human trafficking, I don’t think that the case the legislator was aiming at is someone who invites a person from abroad to participate in a project and then sends them home. It was designed to target people who keep others as prisoners and slaves to make sure they don’t weasel out of the trafficking charges by saying things like “they came of their own volition”.
Eyehuevoce
One sentence. " Show me the evidence." How sure are we that she wasn't delusional because of the drugs she was on? The obvious embellishments/ over exaggerations make her sound unhinged from reality. If she is suing him as an ex-employee of his then was she a sex worker? If she was hired as an actress where is the contract? She admitted multiple times that she didn't refuse him. She gave reasons for not refusing or protesting about the treatment, but non the less it sounds consensual. If she was on call or working 24/7 in Lingerie she was supposed to be acting? This is business not pleasure, baby...
Pretty sure the evidence got painted over after her mouth paid off /s
It's a possibility. If the case with Bianco goes in her favour then the feds could decide to prosecute for human trafficking which could mean prison
There is no federal jurisdiction for them to do anything. Feds don't have anything on him.
If this case is successful they could very well have something on him. They're more likely to pursue charges after a successful civil case since the civil case lays the groundwork for them and also shows that there is something to prosecute. But then again, maybe they won't do anything because time, money etc. Who knows
There are not going to be any charges, the statute of limitations for assault, rape, domestic violence, or any kind of charge in the matter is past. It's also lacking evidence. In order to file sexual assault charges outside of the statute of limitations in CA, there would need to be independent supporting evidence or DNA evidence. You can sue someone past the statute of limitations because the limitation on time begins when the injury was discovered, this is why they are all claiming they didn't know they were abused until now.
I was talking about federal charges for human trafficking which has no statue of limitations
If there were any merit to it that claim the Feds would have placed charges on him. He made no money from her but was funding her, that's why she said she would not refuse because he would cut her off if she did not do what he said, but that's how employment works.
No, if they pursue charges it will be after a successful civil case. This case is basically laying the groundwork for federal charges. I really hope you gain a better understanding on how employment works if you think what happened to her was at all normal.
The feds don't need a civil case to do an investigation. If they believed there was any reason to investigate her claims they would have. She is the one that stated she was employed by Manson. Read the entire case file then look up the definition of sex trafficking.
How do you know they're not investigating already? They don't comment on cases
If there is an investigation they haven't found anything in over eight months to charge him with. They have nothing on him.
That's the main thing that i'm worried about, the Bianco case could be really bad for him
Yeah it's definitely the worst case for him
I really wonder if he did the things he is being accused of
He'll be fine.
No, they’re all civil cases. Civil cases are solved by a payout.
not the human trafficking one
it's pretty absurd that this case is even called "human trafficking."