Looksmaxxer Clavicular SPEAKS in Disturbing Rape Case

The arraignment of social media star. turned criminal defendant Clavvicular. took place in Massachusetts court today. and we're going to tell you what. happened and [music] what's next. Welcome to Sidebar presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Today was the official arraignment of. the incredibly popular looks maxing. influencer Clavvicular real name Braden. Peters out in Massachusetts. This is the. guy who preaches attaining a peak. attractive profile. Okay, very popular,

millions of followers, see his videos. all the time. Now, he's facing criminal. charges and they are very serious. He's. facing charges of rape, administering a. substance for sexual intercourse, and. procuring alcohol for a person under 21. This is all in connection with an. alleged accuser, 17-year-old Alexandra. Vasalevna Mendoza, and that there was. this incident that allegedly took place. on May 23rd, 2025 at Peter's family home. in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. And. according to the criminal complaint from. the Chattam Police Department, Mendoza.

had apparently approached officers at. the station alongside her attorney. And. she apparently reported being quote. raped and gave a formal interview. And. it was during that interview when. Mendoza claimed that Peters ordered her. an Uber to his home after roughly a week. of talking on social media, eventually. being paid to do look maxing videos. And. while they were at his home, she claims. he began streaming on Twitch in his. bedroom, had asked Mendoza to lie about. her age, say that she was 18, even.

though she told police she was 17 at the. time of this hangout. And Mendoza then. claims Peters gave her enough alcohol, that she was quote really drunk, so. allegedly two or three shots of vodka, claims that he kissed her while she was. drunk on the live stream, and that they. had sex after the stream was over. But. at some point the following morning, she. claims she woke up to him having sex. with her without her consent. From an. affidavit in this case, it reads, quote, "Based on Mendoza's level of.

intoxication, which was brought about by. Mr. Peters furnishing alcohol to her for. the purpose of engaging in sexual. intercourse as she was a minor under the. age of 21 years old. I believe that she. lacked the ability to consent." For that. reason, I believe that probable cause. exists to support the following charges. against Braden Peters. rape, drugging. someone for sexual intercourse, and. providing alcohol to someone under the. age of 21. Now, Peters has denied the. allegations through his attorneys. They. have claimed that this sexual encounter. was consensual. They've used the term.

publicity grab. And today, what. happened? Today was the arraignment. He. was at Orleans District Court. Clvicular. apparently, he showed up with a dog. outside the courthouse. According to. CBS, a court clerk said that this was an. emotional support animal. It was. apparently a relatively short hearing. He was read the charges, pleaded not. guilty, released on $10,000 bail, and. had to turn over his passport. He was. also ordered to stay away from his. accuser and not post anything about her. on social media. That last part's.

interesting. I'm going to tell you why. in a minute, but he's due back in court. for a probable cause hearing on November. 24th. Speaking of a probable cause. hearing, according to Los Angeles. magazine, his attorneys filed this. 30-page motion trying to throw the. charges out, trying to throw the case. out, saying that there's insufficient. probable cause to support the charges. They really seem to be focusing on this. issue of age and lack of consent that. when you hear her account that there was. just too much reliance on that to. support this idea that she didn't.

consent to sexual activity. And I also. have to mention that Mendoza filed a. lawsuit against Clavicular 2. Now, this. is important to note. According to an. attorney for Braden Peters, the sexual. battery claim wasn't included in. Mendoza's original April filing in that. lawsuit and was later added when she. amended it in June. And here's what the. June lawsuit says about sexual battery. Quote, Peters then had sex with Mendoza. while she was knowingly intoxicated to. the point where she was unable to give.

consent. That morning, while Mendoza was. asleep, she woke up with Peters. penetrating her and having sex with her. again without her consent. The plaintiff. reasserts the allegation set forth in. paragraphs 1 through 21 is set forth. above. Peters intentionally had sexual. intercourse with Mendoza while she was. intoxicated. Because of Mendoza's. intoxication, she was not able to give. consent due to her incapacitation. Under. Massachusetts law, these acts constitute. battery as a direct and proximate result. of Peter's battery. Mendoza suffered. physical, emotional, and psychological. damages. Okay, this incident and sexual.

battery claim, they're important to. another development because there was a. second alleged incident connected to. this lawsuit as well, which allegedly. occurred 6 months later, 6 months after. in November of 2025 out in Miami. And. according to the lawsuit, Peters had. attempted to kiss and seduce Mendoza, which she rejected. Peters then. allegedly began a live stream on the. kick platform where he told Mendoza he. wanted to inject her cheeks with this. product, this non-FDA approved fat. dissolver. And according to Mendoza,

Peters claimed that he was qualified to. do an injection despite apparently. lacking medical authority. And Mendoza. apparently didn't provide legal consent. to receive it. Now, despite this, Mendoza claims that Peters did in fact. inject her in both cheeks, that her. right cheek was perforated. Peters also. allegedly stated or suggested that meth. had been added to the injection mixture. And the lawsuit claims that Peters and. Mendoza saw each other a handful of. other times, including instances where. Peters paid to let her into bars,

brought drinks for her despite her being. underage, all under the guise that he. was helping her career. And meanwhile, the following year in 2026, Mendoza. claims that Peters began campaigning to. discredit her reputation. And she. claimed this was an attempt to get ahead. of his misconduct through their. relationship. This applies to everybody. I don't care who you are. Saving money. is hard. It really is. No matter what. life throws my way, I'm always trying to. find easier ways to save towards my. goals. And that is why Chime, our. sponsor, America's number one choice for. banking. They make that possible.

Because with the Chime card, you can get. 5% cash back in a category of your. choice every month. Gas, dining, groceries, so much more. Plus, you're. able to switch what category you want. depending on what your life looks like. So, say you have a big trip that's. coming up next month. You probably want. to switch to travel. Look, I would. choose groceries for me and my family. because we've been, you know, meal. planning a lot lately and I don't have a. cashback card currently that offers 5%. back on groceries. Plus, there's no. annual fees. There's no credit check to. apply. And Chime is offering a $100. bonus with a new Chime checking account.

when you go to chime.comside. And if you're not already earning 5%. cash back, get that bonus. Make the. switch to Chime by going to. chime.comside. today. The link is in the description or. you can scan the QR code on screen. Only. takes a few minutes to sign up. Make. sure you go through my link for the up. to $100 bonus. That is. chime.com/sidebar. Now, this is important. You fast forward. to October 8th and another amended. complaint is filed in Miami Date Circuit.

Court. Again, we're still talking about. the lawsuit here. And here we learn. about some new alleged details about. this Miami incident from November of. 2025, including screenshots allegedly. from the kick liveream where Peters. appears to be prepping Mendoza for that. injection. The lawsuit also details. comments that are allegedly made during. the live stream goes to the knowledge. component. Alleged comments like, "Bro, kick the minor off. If she's 17, you can. be banned." There's this claim in this. amended lawsuit. before he injected.

Mendoza. The defendant reading the. comments appearing on the streaming. session says, "She's still a minor, you. bleep." He then responds, "I'm bleeping. 19 years old. Are you guys actually that. bleep? 17 and 19. Society is actually. cooked. If you think that is bad," he. then proceeded to inject the plainif. End quote. Now, this amended complaint. also alleges that after the first. injection, Mendoza appeared drugged on. camera, believed she was injected with. meth or another disclosed substance, which Peters allegedly suggested was.

added to the mixture. Now, I want to be. clear that there are no criminal charges. currently that have been filed against. clavicular in connection with this. injection, with this November 2025. incident, but they're pretty shocking. allegations to say the least. But this. is the big development that happened. last time and we broke it down on a. previous sidebar, but it's interesting. when you consider his arraignment. So. Mendoza's claim of sexual battery. against Peters at his home, you know, the substance of the criminal charges.

that has now been removed from the civil. lawsuit. So what would be the reason for. removing a sexual battery claim like. this from the lawsuit? Well, her lawyer, Mendoza's lawyer, Drew Moss, told NBC, "In light of Mr. Peter's recent posts. and other conduct, this matter is more. appropriate for the criminal justice. system. And according to Moss, the. sexual assault claim was dropped, quote, due to the pending criminal charges in. Massachusetts. Miss Mendoza does not. want her civil case to interfere with. that process. Again, we did a whole.

sidebar on it. You can check out why. that is an interesting thing to do. But. going back to what happened at the. arraignment, remember when the judge. said you can't post anything about her. on social media? And then you hear this. comment from Moss about recent comments. from Braden Peters. Well, this is. interesting because Clvicular had a lot. to say when all these allegations became. public, including providing digital. receipts to the public, mostly taking. aim at Mendoza's lawsuit. So, for. example, there was this post trying to. get my attention in any way possible. A. lawsuit seriously really petty of you.

And he also allegedly posted a letter. that was written by Mendoza to him. and. reads in part, quote, just know Braden, you have my loyalty 100%. I admire the. man you are and secretly the values you. had about women should be in the. kitchen, lol. I'm also really thankful. for you helping me as much as you have. been providing some income for me and a. place because genuinely I've always. wanted a stable place and you're. providing that. He then allegedly. included a text message thread seemingly. between him and Mendoza. It reading.

Mendoza saying, "Hey, Clav, how are. you?" Clvicular seemingly responds, "Good." Then she allegedly texts him. again roughly six 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 Clvicular seemingly. responds, I've been pretty busy. Then. Doza seemingly responds, "Yeah, I get. that. When you get more settled, LMK.". And then she allegedly sends another. text on January 7th with a year that's. not specified that seemingly asks him,

"Can you help me set up kick?" Now, in. an email to NPR, a representative for. Clavicular, Mitchell Jackson said she. files a lawsuit and doesn't include. sexual assault as account. Then she. amends it and adds it a couple of months. later. Clavicular then filed a motion to. dismiss fighting the civil lawsuit. because letter text messages show knew. what was happening with the injections. and she refused to pay money. She and. her lawyer then go to police. So, you. see him making the allegation that she's. not a credible figure here. And then I. also have to add this in new documents. that were filed by Peter's attorneys.

They claim that he and this alleged. victim seemingly Mendoza first connected. back in the spring of 2025 and that he. helped her grow her online presence and. the filing includes the alleged messages. between the two. So despite the court. order preventing him from posting online. about his accuser, it seems at least. from my point of view that now this is. going to be a part of the filings that. his attorney or attorneys may be able to. include these communications in their. filings. Lot to talk about. Okay, so let. me bring back in attorney Ben Shu, who.

as we know famously represented Johnny. Depp in his very high-profile trial. Talk about clvicular once again. Ben, always good to see you. Always. appreciate your time. Look, I thought. there's some things to take away from. this hearing and maybe not even so much, well, yes, the substance of the hearing, too. But one of the things I noted is. the media storm. He walks in to this. courthouse, slammed by the media, reporters everywhere. That's such a. unique aspect, right? It's such a unique. aspect to defend somebody who the.

cameras are on constantly. You see this. circus outside the courthouse if this. advances to a trial, whether it's a. criminal trial or even the civil trial. I mean, it's going to be a media. firestorm. What is that like? >> It really is. From the lawyer's point of. view, it's a distraction you just have. to put out of your mind and you have to. keep focused on your defense in this. case and not to let the judge get the.

inkling that you are affected by it in. any way because you certainly don't want. to incur the wrath of the court. You. just have to stay focused on your. knitting as it were and focused on the. defense. Does it provide. undue pressure when you when you know. there's so much attention on, you know, your arguments, your advocacy, you're. going in and out of your car, you're. going in and out with evidence boxes, you're going in and out with your. client, the media's there, cameras are. there. Is it is it tough? Is it tough to. be a part of a case that's that. high-profile?

>> You know, it's funny, Jess. Yeah. I I. don't think it really adds too much. pressure because and and you're the same. way. you care so much about your client, any client, whether there's media or. not, that you already have so much. internal pressure on you, to to to win. for your client that it really in in my. experience, it it really didn't affect. me that much. It really hit it it hits. me more after the fact when you go back. and you read some of the coverage, the.

criticism, or the praise of of whatever. you did. But at as as the time you're. doing it, it it really shouldn't affect. you. >> Yeah. But then you have all those. articles like who's Clvicular's. attorney? Five things you need to know. and like where they practice, where they. live. And look, the most recent example. was Lindseay Clancy, right? Her attorney. Kevin Readington was everywhere. Everybody knew about him. He became a. star. Like everybody was following him. and there was, you know, social media. praise. And it's just like it's.

attention to a lawyer in a way. I don't. know if they've ever received before and. I just find that such a unique. experience. >> Yeah, I think in that case I thought he. really did an outstanding job. substantively during the trial and I I. really like the way he handled the media. until the end. I think he he appeared to. become a little perhaps too fond of it. and. >> he started playing into a little bit and. I think again I'm I'm not criticiz I. wouldn't presume to criticize him in any.

way but I think you have to be very. careful. >> that you don't become the story or you. don't do anything that might further. your own position that doesn't further. your clients and that especially goes. with the media. got to make sure your. client's on board with whatever you're. planning to do there. >> And you have to tell your client, don't. say anything to the media substantively. as you're walking in and out of court, which by the way happened today, right? So Clvicular was going in, he was asked. questions about the case, didn't really. say anything. He shows up with this dog. and apparently CBS News reports from a.

court clerk, it was an emotional support. animal. That was interesting. U is that. common? Do you see something like that? I mean, going into a criminal case, it's. it's a it's a very stressful time. Um it. certainly highly stressful on clvicular. and his counsel. I think the emotional support dog is a. very interesting gambit which could go. one of two ways. Number one, people love. dogs. You may remember uh it's even. become an issue in presidential.

campaigns. Senator Romney was running. for for president. There was a a. controversy of his putting the dog on. the roof of his car. and here a very. decent man was you know having to defend. that. So I think people tend to like. dogs on the other hand if they see that. this is some kind of a ploy and that he. is not a person who would ordinarily. need a support dog and is trying to. curry favor or sympathy. I could see it. backfiring. >> You mean there could be those who view.

that as saying I don't think it's. emotional support dog. I think it's a. way to strategically soften his image. given the charges that he's facing. >> Absolutely. And and you know on. airplanes you can't just bring your dog. or just say it's a support dog. You you. have to have criteria that you satisfy. And I don't know whether he does or not. or how the judge is going to handle it. But I think it's a little bit of a risk. because I think it could backfire if. they think he's just trying to engender. sympathy. >> And just to be clear, this could 100% be.

totally legitimate that he needs this. dog, that it is an emotional support. animal. So, I know we're playing kind of. speculation, but just to be clear, this. is what it could very well be. Here's a. question for you. Is it hard to get a. fair and impartial jury in this case? He's been he's on social media. A lot of. young people know who he is. Um, you. wonder some of his comments. Does it. affect them or not? Do you want people. on that jury, whether it's a criminal. case or a civil case, do you want people. on that jury who know him?

>> Great question. I I don't think that in. this case, Cape Cod, you know, that. venue is going to be any better or worse. for him in terms of, you know, he's got. 1 million followers as you know. So, that's going to be an issue wherever he. is. I think if you're his lawyer, you. you want people who follow him because. presumably most follow him because they. like him or like what he has to say. If. you're the prosecution, you you probably. want to exclude those people. The.

$10,000 bail lot makes sense. Gravity of. the charges, is that customary? What'. you make of that? >> It sounds a little low to me. I mean, these are very serious charges. I mean, rape and and, you know, drugging to, you. know, to commit rape. These are very, very serious charges. And it sounds low. to me, but I think in any case, he. probably would have been able to meet. the bond. So perhaps the amount is not. that material. And he is he is a.

celebrity which arguably makes him less. likely to flee the jurisdiction because. people know who he is and certainly. would recognize him at any border. crossing that kind of thing to the. extent they don't have his passport. >> that he surrendered it. He surrendered. his passport which I think is s it's. common right but I think it's also. significant for somebody who may have. the means to travel and the ability to. travel. >> Absolutely. And we've seen that. We've. seen that in these cases where people. have have fled the jurisdiction. So, uh.

I think in this case, taking the. passport or surrendering the passport. was a good idea. But these are very very. serious charges and hopefully he is. taking them with the requisite spec. seriousness because his career, his life. could come to a crashing halt if the. jury rules against him here. And of. course, if there are any conditions that. are violated, and this is in any case, and I'm not saying he would do this, this, but if any of the conditions of. this bail, these bail terms are um. ultimately violated, it could, you know,

it could be that could be revoked. He. might go to jail. Um, one of the aspects. of it is he has he cannot have any. contact with the accuser in this case. Again, we see that many times. Interesting also that he cannot post. about her in any way. And I mentioned. this before, there was an argument that. he had made some posts about. conversations that he had about his. opinion about the case. No more of that. And it seems now his attorneys and even. their latest filing, they're adopting.

it, right? They're adopting and. including some of the communications or. alleged communications between the two. So they're taking over now, right? So in. other words, I think that that's. significant because of his reach. I. guess the concern would be it's not even. a first amendment argument. It's not. even an opinion argument. I guess. there's a concern that what he posts. could not only taint the jury, but could. it endanger the alleged accuser? >> Yeah, absolutely. And I'm I'm surprised. that his attorneys would not have issued. that instruction to him, you know, long.

before now. In these cases, we always. tell our clients, you know, in civil. cases, uh, and this is a criminal case, but, you know, not to say anything, uh, because it it will definitely could be. used against them and and it could, as. you said, in this case, it could. actually damage the alleged victim and. lead to her harm, especially now and. especially, you know, in light of the. massive following that he that he has. Just to add to that though, the reason I. think it was significant, and we talked. about this last time, that sexual.

battery claim being dropped from the. lawsuit, her attorney had said that it. was in light of the comments that he. made, the post that he made, and they. said it's now more appropriate for the. criminal arena. And so, I thought that. that was significant. We talked about. this before, but I think the argument is. something that he posted or said. influence the actual civil case. >> Yeah. And and this obviously what what. happens here in the criminal case is.

going to have just an enormous impact on. the civil case. Uh if he's acquitted, it. doesn't in any way doom the civil case. because as you well know, it's a. different standard. is much lower. standard in the civil case. And we've. seen many cases where there have been. acquitt criminal side and yet a jury on. the civil side has found liability. But. certainly a guilty uh finding by the. jury here would be effectively be.

dispositive on the civil case and and. devastating. Obviously, >> the thing to look out for now is this. probable cause hearing that's uh been. scheduled, which um you know, does the. prosecution have sufficient evidence to. support the charges? They maybe probably. won't present everything they have, but. that's going to be a true test, isn't. it? And what do you expect from such a. hearing? >> Wow. Yeah. I mean there there are. questions that we've talked about and. you have I think it's very complicated.

from the prosecution's point of view. You have the subsequent interaction in. Delray Beach which the defense would. obviously argue was well if this sexual. assault if the alleged sexual assault. actually occurred in Cape Cod, why on. earth would she voluntarily show up in. Florida? I know she thought it was it. wasn't going to be in Delray Beach, an. hour away from her home, but I mean, why. would a woman who was violated in that. way willingly show up to see him again.

and allow him to inject her? I mean, I. think there are a lot of issues of fact, but I think these are going to be issues. of fact for the jury. I don't think it's. going to be an impediment at the. probable cause. Do you think at that probable cause. hearing they're going to bring in the. stuff about the injection? I mean, it's. not a part of the criminal case, but I. guess like is she going to testify? I. mean, it seems like a big part of this. case is going to be her account. No, I.

mean, >> yeah. I mean, I would think they would. try to avoid that obviously because you. don't want your witness testifying any. more than you have to because every time. she testifies, she's going to say it. somewhat differently. and a and a great. lawyer like you would, you know, probe. those inconsistencies. So, if they can. do it without having to show too much of. their hand, obviously that's what the. prosecution would like to do. >> and save her for trial. But I think it's. going to be a problematic.

experience for her because because of. the subsequent events that arguably. are inconsistent. Now, you'll have. others who say, you know, victims behave. in any number of ways and that appear. favorable or sympathetic to their. attackers, but it's counter it's going. to strike some jurors as is uh. counterintuitive. >> And just to be clear, to go back to. something that you said, this is a lower. burden, right? So, the likelihood that.

the prosecution wouldn't have enough to. support these charges to move forward. Would you say, and again, we don't have. all the evidence in this case, but would. you say the likelihood of this being. dismissed outright is low? >> I I would agree that it's very low, and. I don't think, especially in a. high-profile case like this, the. prosecution. would go forward unless they were very. convinced that they could at least get. to trial, >> much less, you know, get over the very.

low uh hurdle of a probable cause. hearing. And in order to avoid her. testifying in a probable cause hearing, they would probably have like a lead. investigator, maybe a digital forensics. examiner talking about the live stream, things like that. I guess I'm just. trying to also wonder who else who else. would testify to support the charges if. it's not her. >> Yeah. I mean, I think you're right. I. think they'll have investigators, you. know, police officers and and as you. pointed out earlier, I mean, there he.

there have been online, you know, reports of this and he has certainly. referenced her. So, they could arguably. use some of his own words against him. I. mean, that's another reason going back. to your earlier point where you want. him, if you're his lawyer, to shut up. and just be quiet. >> Yeah. >> Be very careful. This is not going to be. one of his programs. I mean, this is. this is dead serious. And that's why I. think he's got to be very careful about.

the dog. If he's pushing this in any way. for sympathy, it could be an enormous he. does not want to play celebrity here. He. wants to take this dead seriously. >> I thought it was significant that he. didn't say anything to the media today, right? He didn't say anything. It's like. the complete opposite of like an Alex. Jones when he went in and out of court. He was just talking about everything. every 5 seconds. So, let's see what. happens at this uh probable cause. hearing. Uh Ben Shu, always appreciate. you. Thank you so much for taking so. much. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so.

much for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.