A recent court filing states (in part):
"Defendant Chanci Idell Turner engaged in intentional, harmful, and offensive sexual contact with Plaintiff by knowingly failing to disclose her recent sexual activity with other partners immediately prior to engaging in intimate physical contact with Plaintiff. Such conduct constitutes sexual battery under Nevada law, as it involved non-consensual exposure to bodily fluids and disease vectors under false pretenses and without informed consent.
While repeatedly affirming exclusive fidelity to Plaintiff, Defendant Turner engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with other men and allowed those partners to ejaculate intravaginally mere hours before initiating intimate acts with Plaintiff. Turner knowingly concealed these facts, thereby depriving Plaintiff of the ability to give informed, voluntary consent and exposing him to health risks and psychological harm.”"
"Plaintiff [REDACTED] and Defendant Chanci Idell Turner were engaged in an intimate relationship that spanned approximately two years, during which Turner repeatedly affirmed her fidelity and long-term intentions. Plaintiff discovered that, during the first year of the relationship, Turner was cohabiting with her direct supervisor at https://t.co/0aeqJtrwZV Services LLC, thereby concealing a material conflict of interest and engaging in a sustained pattern of deception.
In or around January 2025, Defendant Turner met in person with Plaintiff and engaged in sexual activity, during which she transmitted to Plaintiff a ureaplasma infection. At that time, Plaintiff was cohabiting with his pregnant spouse—a fact known to Turner, who had expressly acknowledged and affirmed her acceptance of Plaintiff’s concurrent relationship. Following the onset of symptoms, Turner was notified of the medical advice received from Plaintiff’s wife’s obstetrician-gynecologist regarding the risks posed by the infection. Turner did not express surprise upon being informed and simply thanked Plaintiff for the information.
On or about July 4, 2025, Plaintiff advised Turner that the ureaplasma infection had re-emerged and was being treated, noting symptoms had persisted for several weeks. In response to Plaintiff’s inquiry about her honesty and fidelity, Turner again swore she had been “100% loyal.”
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff uncovered evidence that Turner had engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with another male individual at approximately 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2025—just hours prior to engaging in sexual intercourse with Plaintiff during the daytime hours of July 5, 2025. Turner failed to disclose this prior sexual encounter, thereby knowingly exposing Plaintiff to the bodily fluids of a third party and reintroducing the ureaplasma infection. This conduct resulted in both physical harm and significant emotional distress to Plaintiff."
Disclaimer: The above passage is quoted verbatim from a publicly filed civil complaint (Plaintiff v. CHANCI IDELL TURNER, an individual; and https://t.co/mYVtZgbjbG SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. Clark County District Court, Case. These are allegations, not findings of fact.)
@citrusfruitc@HazelLoves1216@beauty_is_brie@Goddess_Neek11@theraventurner @Team_Jayanna @certified_donut
Amazon HQ Seattle, WA: employees in a group calling themselves "Amazon Worker Intifada" staged a protest on 10/7, shouting "There is only one solution, Intifada revolution."
This is incitement to violence. Every employee involved must be terminated.
1. JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (🔥)
If Corporation X told Court A that duties are only in the offer letter (and won)… then told Court B that other duties exist (to sue Y)… that's classic judicial estoppel.
🧾 Motion: File for judicial estoppel immediately.
📌 Cites: New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001): courts may bar a party from taking contradictory positions in different proceedings.
2. RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS / SUMMARY JUDGMENT
If the only contract (offer letter + non-compete) allowed the referral fees, and Corp X previously argued that no other duties exist, Y should move to:
Dismiss remaining claims (RICO, fraud, unjust enrichment)
Summary judgment on the merits, based on the same factual findings
3. SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11
Corp X made knowingly false representations to federal courts.
🧾 Motion: Rule 11 sanctions against Corporation X and their outside counsel.
Rule 11(b): attorneys certify that factual contentions have evidentiary support and that legal arguments are non-frivolous.
4. DOJ ETHICS & DUTY TO RECTIFY
🚨 The DOJ swore under oath to a false fact: that the referral payments were “unauthorized.” If that’s proven false based on Corp X's own documents, prosecutors may have violated Rule 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor).
They have a duty to correct the record.
A Brady violation may be in play if this exculpatory info was withheld.
5. CO-CONSPIRATOR PLEAS = TAINTED
If the plea deals were based on a foundational lie, defense counsel could move to:
Vacate guilty pleas
Withdraw judgments
Challenge asset forfeitures
Those attorneys have Rule 1.1 (competence) and Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) duties — but also Rule 3.3 (candor to the tribunal). They may need to disclose.
6. BAR COMPLAINTS
If Corp X's outside counsel knew of the contradictory positions and didn’t disclose, that’s a Rule 3.3 (candor) and possibly Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty) violation.
📝 Yes, Employee Y should file bar complaints. Start with:
Corp X's law firm
DOJ attorneys involved
Any others who misrepresented facts
7. DOJ INVESTIGATION
The DOJ owes a duty to the public trust. If it seized $7M based on false statements, that’s not just a screw-up — it’s a civil rights and abuse-of-process issue.
🧾 Remedies could include:
Motion to return property (FRCP 41(g))
Bivens claim or §1983 if there's malicious abuse by federal agents
DOJ OPR complaint or Inspector General referral
8. IF CORPORATION X = AMAZON?
If it’s true that Amazon, Bezos, Jassy, Zapolsky were involved — this becomes politically explosive. But the legal analysis doesn’t change.
🔥 Power doesn’t excuse fraud.
🚫 Courts may give deference, but precedent and ethics rules don’t.
Conclusion:
Judicial estoppel = the kill shot. Use it.
Summary judgment = close it out.
Rule 11 = accountability for false statements.
DOJ & bar complaints = ethical reckoning.
🚨 Amazon VGT2 scandal: Manager & subordinate in undisclosed relationship, BOTH lied in HR proceedings, BOTH benefited from policy violations.
@amazon@amazonnews — Keeping either sends a message: favoritism & dishonesty are tolerated.
#AmazonHR #WorkplaceEthics
https://t.co/XxRwoHkz24
🚨 Amazon VGT2 scandal: Manager & subordinate in undisclosed relationship, BOTH lied in HR proceedings, BOTH benefited from policy violations.
@amazon@amazonnews — Keeping either sends a message: favoritism & dishonesty are tolerated.
#AmazonHR #WorkplaceEthics
https://t.co/XxRwoHkz24