Looksmaxxer ‘Clavicular’ Blasts Alleged Rape Victim

Looks maxing influencer Clavvicular is. now taking to social media. This is. after it was announced he was hit with a. bombshell rape charge out in. Massachusetts and it appears he is going. after one person, the alleged victim in. this case with his own set of digital. receipts. Most important questions, where does the case stand legally? How. does this maybe help him or hurt him? We're going to break it all down right. now with somebody who is very. experienced with representing. high-profile celebrity defendants,

criminal defense attorney Bradford. Cohen. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by. Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Well, it's only been 3 days since the. news broke, shocking the online. Looksmaxing universe that Braden Peters, also known as Clavvicular, I've said it. before, I'll say it again. Even if you. don't know his name, you probably have. seen his face, okay? He probably. populates your social media feed. He was. hit with a set of criminal charges out. in Massachusetts. They were filed on. September 8th in the Orleans District. Court. And we know that he has had some.

run-ins with the law earlier this year, right? Suspicion of drug possession, a. fake ID out in Arizona, a battery case. in Florida, both of which were dropped. by prosecutors, and he was sentenced to. probation for shooting a dead alligator, also in Florida. This time around, very. different. 20-year-old is accused of. serious allegations. Rape, drugging. someone for sexual intercourse, and. providing alcohol to someone under 21. Two of which are felony charges. It all. stems from an incident on the night of. May 23rd, 2025 at his family's home in.

Cape Cot. But now, and this is what I. really want to get into, how he's. fighting back. The looks maxer is. clapping back on social media, calling. this whole thing a money grab. and he. has provided his supposed digital. receipts that he claims proves this. But. look, the charges are very real. And. we're going to break down where the case. stands in the Massachusetts legal. system. We're going to talk about what. it means for him to be putting this out. on social media, what the potential. strengths, weaknesses of the.

prosecution's case may be. And we're. going to do it all with celebrity. defense attorney Bradford Cohen in a. minute. But just to back up for a. second, okay, just those learning about. this, a little background. So, the. alleged victim in this case is. 18-year-old Alexandra Vasalevna Mendoza, also known online as Allora or Allora. Zea. And by the way, the New York Post. has reported that her lawyer came out. and said she is the alleged victim in. this criminal case. Now, she claims that. she was 17 at the time of this alleged. May 2025 incident with Peters at his.

family home in Cape Cod. In the criminal. complaint from the Chattam Police. Department, Mendoza claims that Peters. was running a Twitch stream in his. bedroom and had asked her to lie about. her age and say she was 18. Mendoza then. claims that Peters gave her enough. alcohol that she was quote really drunk. that they hooked up after the stream was. over, but at some point the following. morning, she claims that she woke up to. him having sex with her without her. consent. And all this came to light much. earlier than this week. I mean, when we.

first heard about these criminal. allegations, first thing we thought is. they mirror and are very consistent with. what we covered on a previous sidebar. when Mendoza filed a lawsuit against. Clevicular back in April of this year. And then there was an amended complaint. in June. and both deal with the same. alleged incident in Massachusetts and an. additional alleged incident out in. Florida 6 months later in which she. claims Peters injected her cheeks with. Aqualix without her consent. It's a.

non-FDA approved compound meant to. dissolve cheek fat. This all apparently. happened on a live stream on the. platform kick, which you have to imagine. can be a key piece of evidence. Now, according to the lawsuit, Peters. allegedly presented himself as having. medical authority despite not being a. licensed physician and the injection. allegedly went wrong, perforating her. cheek. Mendoza claims that Peter. suggested that methamphetamine had been. added to the substance. She claims their. relationship started after Peters paid.

her $1,000 to film videos, helped her. become the female face of the looks. maxing movement, and has mentioned in. the lawsuit, things allegedly went. terribly wrong somewhere along the way. Not to take away from this in any way, but I'm just really, really excited. about this sponsor. It's called Whatnot. I don't know if you know whatnot is. I'm. on it like hours a day. They're also. giving away 20 Nintendo Switch twos. More on that later, but WhatNot is the. number one live streaming shopping app. You connect with people who are as. enthusiastic as you about the same. things. There's something for everyone.

at every age. Pokemon cards, sports. cards, electronic tools, coins, toys, Lego, Funko, snacks, candy, meat, seafood. There's literally like. everything. And I'll give you an. example. So, I'm a Marvel collectible. guy. I just got this gambit on a live. stream. Hu huge X-Men guy. And I got it. cheaper than I would have got it online. Got it. >> Got it. And they also do giveaways. And. you have this whole community. And it's. fun. Again, I'm spending hours on it. And you can use my link or scan the QR. code to get $15 off your first purchase.

anywhere on the app right now. So, that. means I got this Captain America for 55. I'd only get it for 40. So, to enter the. giveaway for 20 Nintendo Switch 2, you. sign up to Whatnot. Make sure you're. following whatnot, but you might as well. use my link to download WhatNot because. it gets you $15 off your first purchase. anywhere on the app. So, now we get to. how Peters is reacting to this whole. situation. Some clients, some criminal. defendants will say, or some people who. were sued, going to remain quiet. Let my. attorney do the talking. No statement at. this time. Not him. Seemingly one of the.

first things he did was go on X with the. following post. quote, "Trying to get my. attention in any way possible, a. lawsuit. Seriously, really petty of. you." And he attached several files to. this post, which we can assume are his. version of digital receipts supporting. his claims of attention. Remember this. idea that it's a money grab. So, the. first is a clip of seemingly Mendoza. specifically surrounding that injection. allegation in her lawsuit. >> And what else? Not dating Clav.

just did a little stream together where. he injected Aqualix. It was really fun, super nice. Send me an Uber home right. after. >> And Peter's also attached a written. letter, which appears to be from. Mendoza. Reads as follows. Quote, I wish. you had art supplies so I could make. this good. Also, don't mind my dyslexic. writing, but just know Braden, you have. my loyalty 100%. Although, I heard some. things like you don't GF seemingly give. a f, but I do. And I'm always here. genuinely written in contract. I admire.

the man you are and secretly the values. you had about women should be in the. kitchen. Lol. But I want to stay on this. grind and grow with you. You've worked. so hard and I got a reality check now. that my name's going up the comments and. nasty and fake people and gained a lot. of respect towards you for staying loyal. to your grind and being a man about it. I'm also really thankful for you helping. me as much as you have been backend with. providing some income for me and a place. because genuinely I've always wanted a. stable place and you're providing that.

So, thank you, Braden, signed with her. name. Then in parenthesis at the bottom, it appears to say, quote, "I don't have. money to give, but I could give a back. massage, do a day spa for you, chef up a. macro good meal, just let me know, hug. always down, I love hugs." In addition. to this apparent letter, Peters also. attached a text message exchange. presumed to be between him and Mendoza. dated December 29th, though the year is. not specified, but the exchange says the. following quote from Mendoza or.

seemingly Mendoza, "Hey, Clav, how are. you?" He seemingly responds, "Good.". Then she allegedly texts him again. roughly 6 hours later. "I want you, NGL. I'm tired of being like independent. I. mean, I like it, but I just need a man. to relax with. We could keep everything. private, too, like no social media. And. he seems to respond, "I've been pretty. busy." Mendoza seemingly responds, "Yeah, I get that when you're get more. settled, LMK." Then she allegedly sends. another text on January 7th with a year.

not specified, but appears to say, "Can. you help me set up kick?" Now, that was. just one post from Peters. Not the end. of it. There was another ex post that. says, quote, "Lmao was literally trying. to work at Picara as a bottle girl. How. about don't finance cars you can't. afford? Happens to all successful young. men. People try to come for your money. Greed is evil. And he also apparently. attached a screen grab of an alleged DM. seemingly from Mendoza on TikTok to an. unknown party, saying, quote, "Hey, so I.

have a question. I know you're a bottle. girl, and I'm so curious how much you. make and how the job is and if it gets. scary, just your thoughts in general.". He also appeared to reply with a heart. to a post from another influencer who. goes by the name Wo Vicki which says the. following quote. Clav charg is fake. The. girl suing needs God because greed is a. sin. But Clavvicular didn't just post on. X. He also posted a video on Instagram. with the caption greed is a sin. And the. video seemingly includes the same text.

message thread and a caption saying. quote, "There's better ways to make. money than suing someone because they. don't want you." along with a screenshot. of the letter that we read before with. the caption interesting. That same video. was apparently also shared to his Tik. Tok account and it was captioned with. quote yeah still texting me to this day. totally not just trying to be greedy and. get a check. Now when it comes to any. official statements attorney Steve. Kramer sent the following to NBC Miami. back when the lawsuit was first filed in. April saying quote we are aware of the.

complaint recently filed against Mr. Peters. These are allegations only and. remain unproven. Mr. Peters denies the. claims and disputes the characterization. of events. He will respond through the. appropriate legal channels and intends. to vigorously defend himself. We will. not comment further at this time. Now, obviously, this was before the. Massachusetts criminal charges were. filed, but remember the news first broke. on Monday night and since then a. representative for Clavicular named. Mitchell Jackson has communicated to. several media outlets that Peters has. not been served with an arrest warrant.

for his charges. In an email to NPR, Jackson reportedly wrote she files a. lawsuit and doesn't include sexual. assault as account. Then she amends it. and adds it a couple of months later. Clvicular then filed a motion to dismiss. fighting the civil lawsuit because. letter text messages show she knew what. was happening with the injections and he. refused to pay money. She and her lawyer. then go to police. So where does this. case go next? Well, on paper, Peter's. arraignment is reportedly scheduled for. October 14th at the Orleans District. Court in Massachusetts. We'll wait and.

see how this plays out, but I want to. get into what these messages, this. apparent evidence means, how strong the. prosecution's case is, what the strategy. is. That's what I want to get into. All. right, I want to bring in my buddy, criminal defense attorney Bradford. Cohen, to talk about this. Uh, Bradford, you are no stranger to high-profile. cases. You are no stranger to. high-profile defendants. It always feels. like a different kind of defense. This. one's interesting, though. I actually. want to start with what you're seeing. from Clvicular's online response,

whether it was to the lawsuit, whether. it seems to the criminal case. A, do you. think he's getting advice from legal. counsel to post these things and say. these things? And B, do you think it is. advantageous? Because I have to imagine. he's not only fighting a a battle in the. court of law, he's also fighting a. battle in the court of public opinion. He's he's got a reputation to protect. >> Sure. And you see that a lot of times in. these cases where they're fighting in. court, they're also fighting public.

opinion. Uh I know his defense attorney, his defense attorney is a really good. good defense attorney, good guy. I don't. think that he would be giving him the. advice to get these statements out in. public. I think the better advice would. probably be to let the, you know, let. someone else disseminate the defense. let someone else disseminate like these. texts just coming from someone else. You. can't really use that in court. Now that. he's charged criminally, you can use. anything he says in against him. If he.

takes the stand and he wants to say. something and he trips up, he locks. himself in to a defense by giving a. statement. So, I never think that it's a. good idea for someone to give a. statement coming directly from them. If. the attorney wants to give a statement, if the press gets a, you know, a heads. up on these texts or other evidence that. might be exculpatory, I think that's a. better route in my opinion on these. high-profile cases than to get the. actual defendant to make a statement.

other than, hey, I'm not guilty. I'll. see you in court. You know, just a. generalized statement that is put out by. every PR company. I don't think it's a. good idea. >> You used a good word exculpatory. when. you look at some of these messages that. were put forward, the conversations, do. you see it as exculpatory or in 2026. does that not tell the full story? Because I think, you know, our these are. allegations for sure. These are. allegations uh that he's facing. He has. not uh been found guilty. He's not been.

found liable. But I guess the. counterargument is is our understanding. of sexual assault or alleged sexual. assault has completely changed in terms. of does someone stay in touch with the. person who allegedly abused them or or. speak highly of them? Are they. manipulated? Do they have psychological. um considerations that we have to be. thinking about? But do you look at these. messages and say, "My gosh, you know, this is pretty strong for clvicular.". Um, I don't I think there are messages.

that would be strong. I I think the the. time difference is unique here, you. know, and we've seen this time and time. again in these type of cases. And I've. had cases where the next day they're. texting with each other. That's to me. more exculpatory than someone who texts. seven months later, hey, you're still a. good guy or whatever. You know, they may. have ulterior motives for texting them. seven months later. I don't know. Um the. day after if someone's texting and I.

know this happened in Dave Portoy's. accusations, you know, there was some. accusations against him that he went ham. on. I mean, this guy, he went full boat. and he showed every text and he's, you. know, the next day he's texting that. young lady like, "You had a great time?". "Yeah, I had a great time." You know, so. all these things that's exculpatory. The. stuff that Dave Portoi put out was. exculpatory and that's why those cases. or those potential cases never happened.

because he was so good at recordkeeping. and showing exculpatory material. In. this case, this is kind of, in my. opinion, the Harvey Weinstein type. defense where, you know, a young lady. comes to his room at 3:00 in the morning. and then something inappropriate happens. and she's now in her head something. inappropriate happened and a year later. she's like, "Hey, are you going to, you. know, con for the film festival? Love to. join you. I'd love to sit down with you. and have a talk about your next movie.". So in that case, people saw those texts.

and they didn't, you know, they on one. of the cases, they didn't believe it at. all because they convicted him. And I. think that it really just goes to the. weight and credibility of the individual. taking the stand. And that's what it. always comes down to when it has these. cases. So the young lady's going to take. the stand and the defense council is. going to be, I'm sure, uh, very adept at. saying, "Hey, but by the way, seven. months later, you were like, "Hey, do. you want to go to dinner? Do you want to. hang out? Why would you do that? And. then the state would counter, listen,

when a young lady gets sexually. assaulted. It's never a straight, you. know, arrow that says that she hates the. person or doesn't hate the person. It's. more convoluted than that. You know, they may work together. They may have. mutual friends and she might not want to. say something. There's so many things. that go into these sex assault cases um. that weigh heavily on the individual's. testimony and their credibility. It's. really hard to say. But do I think it's. good for him? Yes, I think it's good for.

him. Do I think it's exculpatory? No. Things could still have happened six or. seven months ago and she just, you know, doesn't say it seven months later or. treats it differently. >> And this is what makes it different in. my eyes. It's not like just somebody. made an accusation on X and he's, you. know, sending messages to say, you know, posting messages that's not true. Look. at this. The fact that this is. materialized and if we're you know. materialized into a lawsuit and. materialized into a criminal case to me.

this signifies this is somebody who is. willing to you know go public with this. to face cross-examination perhaps in. multiple proceedings to be deposed and. that is not easy going after somebody as. high-profile as him. Um, does that add. in your mind to the potential. credibility of her claims? The fact that. she would put that out there and be the. subject of immense scrutiny. >> I think it's tough to say. You know,

listen, these cases, like I said, are. very difficult. I've been on both sides. of the coin here. I've been on the. plaintiff side, the defense side, the. criminal defense side, and it's tough to. say what the individual, you know, individuals could be motivated by other. things. You don't know. in this case, you know, the video of him with her on. video is not to me a good thing. Um, the. fact that. >> Do you mean So, you mean the live. stream? You mean that live stream that. live stream is problematic for for what? At the very least, why is that a problem.

for you? >> It shows that he's he's shooting. something into her face and then they're. drinking together and she's getting. drunk and allegedly he's also drunk. So, you know, once you're. >> providing alcohol to someone under 21, I. mean, that that could be the charge. That might be the easiest one if you. look at the live stream. >> Oh, yeah. Well, I think that's just a, you know, that's neither here nor there. I I mean, that's an that's probably the. easiest charge. But the fact that he's. providing alcohol to someone underage.

and then having, you know, alleged. sexual relationships with with this. individual who, by the way, in. Massachusetts, I think it it's not that. she's underage for consent, but the fact. that she was, you know, pied with. alcohol allegedly and then also had. sexual relations, I think that mix of. things really hurts him even with these. texts year, you a year later or eight. months later saying, "Hey, let's get. together." I think that's going to be.

the thing that they're going to have to. overcome. And that's really that's a. dangerous thing. And listen, the press. takes on its own animal. You know, I've. had cases where the guy was 17 and the. girl was 19 and it's a high-profile guy. who was 17 and they're saying he had sex. with a teenager. Like, she's 19, he's. 17. So they don't they don't you know. the press the clicks don't come from a. 17-year-old guy had sex with a. 19-year-old girl. The clicks come from.

uh you know this high-profile guy had. sex with a teenager. So like you know. there's certain ways that the press is. going to address this that also really. hurts him. And I see that's why he. probably wants to come out and make. these statements. It's really difficult. when you have a young client and you're. trying to tell them, hey, listen, don't. go on social media, even though they are. a social media personality, don't do. this because it may hurt you in the long. run and it locks you into a defense that. we may necessarily not want to be locked.

into. >> Are you also saying that it might be. tough for him to get a fair and. impartial jury because of his status, because of the statements, because of. things that he's done on social media? >> I I think that that will definitely come. into play. It always comes into play. I. always tell people, people always come. up to me and go, "Oh, you won that case. because that guy's high-profile and. that's why you won the K." That's not. the way that it works. Generally. speaking, high-profile defendants. usually get treated a lot worse than. than just Bob Smith. First of all, the.

cases that are filed against. high-profile clients, you see, those. cases would never be filed if it was. just a nobody. Uh, you know, I just had. two cases with Kodak that were. dismissed, one in Orlando, one in. Broward. They were horrible cases. They. would never have been filed if it was. just Joe Smith, but they were. specifically filed because of who he. was, and I think because of, you know, the potential for press. So, you always. have to look at those different things. that are coming in and see, can I get a.

fair trial here? How am I going to get a. fair trial? Listen, Massachusetts has. not been known in recent years for. giving really good trials to. individuals. Um, you know, aside from, you know, the the most recent trial. where it was a hung jury, I don't think. Clancy, and that is a crazy one, too. You know, it's like Massachusetts is the. new Florida. So, I don't know what's. going on with Massachusetts juries, but. um they're all over the board. So that. also weighs into, you know, how tough it. will be to, you know, fight the case and.

how they're going to fight it. The area. that you're trying the case in always. has to come into play to any defense. attorney. >> Let me ask you this, and again, let me. emphasize this one more time. He hasn't. been found liable anything. He's. innocent unless proven guilty. Do you. think prosecutors are now trying to find. corroborating witnesses? So, not only. potential witnesses that she may have. spoken to about this, but I'm talking. about people who have similar. potentially similar allegations against. him and in a criminal trial. We kind of.

saw it with Harvey Weinstein, right? But. like what's the ability to introduce. other witnesses like that? Again, I. don't know if anybody like that exists. I don't know if there's any kind of. allegations. I'm not saying that there. are. There may be absolutely none. But I. am trying to think about what the. prosecution strategy is here. Because as. we're talking, it could be a potential. problematic case for them, relying. solely, potentially solely on the. testimony of this one witness. And. perhaps there's not forensic material to.

back up uh this kind of sexual assault. claim. So, if they're relying strictly. on her, I wonder if they want to bolster. that with other potential claims. Do you. think that's what the prosecutors are. doing right now? and legally would they. be able to potentially introduce that. kind of evidence? >> It's that great questions. Number one is. it's always a race to the witness, right? So, I'm sure his defense team and. him are shoring up witnesses in terms of. like, hey, I had a relationship with you. and this never happened. Right? Like.

going through all these different. witnesses that the that the state could. possibly be contacting to say, hey, you. had a relationship with him. Did this. ever happen to you? The state is always. looking for more witnesses when it comes. to, you know, MO 404B type evidence. where they're saying, "Hey, this is what. he does. He um he gives them alcohol or. he shoots them with something or he gets. them where they're inebriated and then.

he has sexual relationships with them.". That's what the state would like to. find. And I guarantee that they are. looking for that. Whether or not they. find it, who knows? And then if they do. find it, then the question becomes, does. it come in? You know, is this the way. that he does things? Then you look at. the Cosby issue, you know, that Cosby. other people were saying, "Oh, that. happened to me. He gave me a a coffee. and then I was out in La La Land and the. next thing I know, I woke up and my. pants were off." So like you know I if.

there are other people that have the. similar uh type accusations against him. whether or not that comes in usually it. does in these type of situations judge. you judges usually let them in i.e. Harvey Weinstein where other people are. like oh he promised me I would get in a. movie and then you know the next thing I. know I'm in his room and he's in a robe. Um, so those type of cases, yes, they. would be looking for those. Whether or. not they can use them or not, it has to.

be similar in nature and and close in. time. There's a there's a way that you. go through it a bunch of different legal. steps whether or not the court would use. it, but generally they do use it. >> And the theme here is actually kind of. similar based on the allegations like. she was looking for him to help her. advance, you know, his her career, right? That seems to be a theme that. we're seeing. That's it. >> As far as I can tell, um, at the time of. this recording, he still hasn't been. served with an arrest warrant. I don't.

know if that's going to change, but if. that, if I'm accurate about that, if he. hasn't been served with an arrest. warrant. Why? >> Um, so it could be because his attorney. is in contact with um Massachusetts. It. could be that they are working out a. time for him to come up there and. surrender. Generally, when it comes to. these type of cases, the good attorneys, and he has a good attorney, the good. attorneys will, as soon as that news. comes out or you get a call, hey, we.

want your client in Connecticut in, you. know, Washington. You'll start. negotiating with them and say like, okay, can we work out a deal for bond? Can we work out a deal when we can go up. there and surrender? And it's just. easier on everyone because listen, you. know, cops jobs are hard enough. And. they don't like serving warrants. No, no. cop likes knocking on someone's door and. and serving a warrant because they don't. know what's behind the door. And they. don't know what security is there and. what what weapons could be there. It's.

for everyone's good and everyone's. safety if and I always tell prosecutors. this. Some listen to me, some tell me to. to to, you know, beat sand. But like I. always say like tell me if I need to. surrender someone, I'll just go. surrender them. I have no problem with. that. And that could be what his uh. defense attorney is doing. That's most. likely what's going on. >> Look, it's disturbing allegations, but. it's an interesting legal case that's. developing right now. Um I'm curious to. follow it, see what happens. Bradford.

Cohen, always appreciate you. Always got. the right answers. Thanks so much, my. friend. >> Thanks, Jess. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us. As always, please. like and subscribe. I'm Jesse Weber. We'll speak to you next time.