Law&Crime Sidebar - Looksmaxxer Clavicular Blasts Alleged Rape Victim in Instagram Selfie

Episode Date: September 24, 2026

“Looksmaxxing” influencer Braden Peters, also known as “Clavicular,” is taking to social media after he was hit with several criminal charges this month — including rape, drugging someone for sexual intercourse and giving alcohol to a minor under 21. Peters’ online posts appear to go after the alleged victim, 18-year-old Aleksandra Vasilevna Mendoza, claiming the incident, and her civil lawsuit, is an attempt to get his attention and money. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the allegations, Peters’ response and what happens next in the legal process with celebrity criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Get $15 off your first purchase on Whatnot using this link: https://www.whatnot.com/invite/jesseweb09248💰 $10,000 GIVEAWAY! 💰 (20 Nintendo Switch 2's)To enter, create a new Whatnot account and make sure you're following @Whatnot in the app. But $15 is literally free money, you might as well use my link to download Whatnot! #whatnotpartnerHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Jay Cruz, Christina O'Shea, & Andrew ZuckermanScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Looks maxing influencer clavicular 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 three days since the news broke, shocking the online looks maxing universe,

that Braden Peters, also known as clavicular, 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 in. 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 incident on the night of May 23rd, 2025 at his family's home in Cape Cod. 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 I'm 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 Vaselevna Mendoza, also known online as Allura or Alora Ziva. And by the way, the New York Post is 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 Chatham 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 clavicular 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 six months later, in which she claims Peters injected her cheeks with Aquilex 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 Peter's paid her $1,000 to film videos,

helped her become the female face of the looks maxing movement. And as 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 what Whatnot is. I'm on it like hours a day. They're also given away 20 Nintendo Switch 2 is 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, huge X-Men guy.

And I got it cheaper than I would have got it online. Got it. Got it. 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 2s, 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 are 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 aquilix. 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 supply so I can 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 GAF, 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, L.O.L. 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. 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, back end 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 parentheses, 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, Peter's 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 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 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 Bacara 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 Vicky, which says the following quote,

Clav charges fake, the girl's suing needs God because greed is a sin. But Clavicular 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 in 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 TikTok 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, Clavicular's 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 law. 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 let her 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, Peters Arraignment is reportedly scheduled for October 14th at the Orleans District Court in Massachusetts, so we'll wait and see how this plays out. But I want to get into what these messages, this appellate, 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. 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 clavicular'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 battle in the court of law, he's also fighting a battle in the court of public opinion. 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 and they're also fighting public opinion. 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 against him if he takes the stand and he wants to say something. he trips up, he locks himself into 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 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 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 use the 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 not not tell the full story? Because I think, you know, these are allegations for sure. These are allegations that he's facing. He has not been found guilty. He's not been found liable.

but I guess the counter argument 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 abuse them or speak highly of them? Are they manipulated? Do they have psychological 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 clavicular? I don't. I think there are messages that would be strong. I think the time difference is unique here. 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 the day after if someone's texting and I know this happened in Dave Portnoy'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 had a great time

yeah I had a great time you know so all these things that's exculpatory the stuff that Dave Portnoy put out was exculpatory and that's why those cases or those potential cases never happened because he was so good at record keeping 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 o'clock 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 your next movie. So in that case, people saw those texts and they didn't, you know, one of the cases they didn't believe it at all because they convicted them. 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 counsel is going to be, I'm sure, very adept at saying, hey, but by the way, seven months later, you were like, hey, 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 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 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 sending messages to say, 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.

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. The fact that they're like, do you mean, so you mean the live stream. You mean that live stream. That live stream is problematic for what, at the very least, why does that a problem for you? It shows that 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 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, you know, that's neither here nor there. I mean, that's probably the easiest charge. But the fact that he's providing alcohol to someone underage and then having alleged sexual relationships with this individual, who, by the way, in Massachusetts, I think it's not that she's underage for consent, but the fact that she was, you know, plied with alcohol, allegedly,

and then also had sexual relations, I think that mix of things really hurts him, even with these texts, you know, 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, 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 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 case.

That's not the way that it works. Generally speaking, high-profile defendants usually get treated a lot worse 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. 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 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. You know, aside from, you know, the most recent trial where it was a hung jury, I don't think planting. And that is the crazy one.

You know, it's like Massachusetts is the new Florida. So I don't know what's going on with Massachusetts juries, but 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 than anything. He's innocent and less 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 them. 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 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? 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 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 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 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, if there are other people that have the similar 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. 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 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, her career, right? That seems to be a theme that we're seeing. As far as I can tell 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 I'm accurate about that, if he hasn't been served with an arrest Warren. Why? So it could be because his attorney is in contact with 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, cop's jobs are hard enough and they don't like serving warrants. No cop likes knocking on someone's door 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 weapons could be there. for everyone's good and everyone's safety if and I always tell prosecutors this. Some listen to me,

some tell me 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 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. I'm curious to follow it. See what happens. Bradford Cohen. I always appreciate you. Always got the right answers. Thanks so much. Thank you. 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. I'll speak to you next time.