Orbiter 8-21-19: [Suspected] Ryan Gordon, Yaniv's "agent," pays a visit to the Farms - The inside story of a gay op trolling plan between Blaire White and Ryan Gordon.

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Thank you, appreciated.

The irony of him saying you have "anger management issues, are deluded, unable to have rational conversations, you get easily triggered" And you're the reason he's "receiving a whiplash of your insecurities. Stop it." Unbelievable.

How can anyone discuss anything with someone like that. You certainly have more patience than I have.
Remember too that this is a literal nobody who has done literally nothing but fail at everything he's ever tried to accomplish. A guy who fucking cold called Anna acting like he thinks he's got fucking Deep Throat levels of intel acting like a sped. Dude has major delusions of grandeur and this is how he reacts when people don't sufficiently kiss his Very Important Ass.

This is the type of conversation that makes you instantly block and ignore for the rest of your life. Seriously, no contact is the only way to deal with people like this. He's a textbook abuser. He tried that shit on us here too.

What he needs is professional help but he's never going to get it because narcissists never think they need help. It's always going to be everyone else who's wrong. So - no contact. It's all you can do.
 
Last edited:

yesthatanna

kiwifarms.net
Thanks @pr3nt177.

And you’re right, @SourDiesel. The fact he hasn’t come back here is telling, but it makes me wonder what he’s cooking up on the the backend. Gordon seemed so unstable in our last interactions and since (here on the Farms demonstrating how little capacity for truth and rationality he has)... people like that don’t go away so silently, in my experience. They flail endlessly, no understanding of the fact clear as day to every other person that it is time to give in.
 

Deadpool

Sheriff of Kiwi Farms!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Thanks @pr3nt177.

And you’re right, @SourDiesel. The fact he hasn’t come back here is telling, but it makes me wonder what he’s cooking up on the the backend. Gordon seemed so unstable in our last interactions and since (here on the Farms demonstrating how little capacity for truth and rationality he has)... people like that don’t go away so silently, in my experience. They flail endlessly, no understanding of the fact clear as day to every other person that it is time to give in.
There are quite a few cows that disappear after a blow to their ego. They have to stew in it until they can twist it into some kind of victory. Even if it turns out being "I sure trolled those kiwi's!!! Or the opportunity to show how bad we are by attacking a gay documentarian. When infact he's just nursing a hurt pride.
 

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
There are quite a few cows that disappear after a blow to their ego. They have to stew in it until they can twist it into some kind of victory. Even if it turns out being "I sure trolled those kiwi's!!! Or the opportunity to show how bad we are by attacking a gay documentarian. When infact he's just nursing a hurt pride.
"Joke's on you, Kiwis. I was only pretending to be r.etarded!" is a classic and I hope he brings it back.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
From looking at https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/66056

1) the child luring statute applies only to 15 and under;
2) prosecutors have to prove that the accused actually believed they were under 16.

Item 2 refers to what @RXG kept talking about. It refers to a sting that took place between a perv and a cop who said they were 14 as part of a sting. That perv appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that he was on a site (Craiglist Casual Encounters) that had an 18+ rule, so he thought he was cosplaying with an actual adult, which turns out to have been true. I don't see anything here, however, that suggests that luring an actual person under 16 isn't actionable even if the kid is on a TOS 18+ site, which don't apply here. FB allows users 13 and up.

But the canlii article also says and cites the age of consent when it comes to Canadian child luring laws at 16. Not 18. So @RXG might have been legally right here when it comes to Canada, especially if Doe lived there too and no other country's rules apply. At 16 in 2009, Jane Doe was of age where the child luring laws in Canada would not apply to her according to the above. By the time Jon invited her to CES, she was 19 or 20 according to @yesthatanna.

@JRumpel3 is a different story. She was on multiple platforms that allow kids or were even youth-oriented, divulging her age and images of her growing up as far back as 2012. She lives stateside where the age of consent is 16, but she's shown timestamped screens showing that a lot of the perv behavior occurred in fact before her 16th birthday. And in any case, it still is illegal for anyone across a state or international border to entice her to come visit them with a sexual purpose until 18.
 

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
From looking at https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/66056

1) the child luring statute applies only to 15 and under;
2) prosecutors have to prove that the accused actually believed they were under 16.

Item 2 refers to what @RXG kept talking about. It refers to a sting that took place between a perv and a cop who said they were 14 as part of a sting. That perv appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that he was on a site (Craiglist Casual Encounters) that had an 18+ rule, so he thought he was cosplaying with an actual adult, which turns out to have been true. I don't see anything here, however, that suggests that luring an actual person under 16 isn't actionable even if the kid is on a TOS 18+ site, which don't apply here. FB allows users 13 and up.

But the canlii article also says and cites the age of consent when it comes to Canadian child luring laws at 16. Not 18. So @RXG might have been legally right here when it comes to Canada, especially if Doe lived there too and no other country's rules apply. At 16 in 2009, Jane Doe was of age where the child luring laws in Canada would not apply to her according to the above. By the time Jon invited her to CES, she was 19 or 20 according to @yesthatanna.

@JRumpel3 is a different story. She was on multiple platforms that allow kids or were even youth-oriented, divulging her age and images of her growing up as far back as 2012. She lives stateside where the age of consent is 16, but she's shown timestamped screens showing that a lot of the perv behavior occurred in fact before her 16th birthday. And in any case, it still is illegal for anyone across a state or international border to entice her to come visit them with a sexual purpose until 18.
There are like a million mitigating factors here though and tbh, Ryan is not right, Ryan merely has a theory and he's applying the outcome of one specific case to his theory and acting like that means shit. At the end of the day, it's not anyone's responsibility to decide what is and isn't actionable according to the Supreme Court of Canada except the cops and the crown attorney. No one in thier right mind goes searching for obscure Supreme Court rulings before they report a pedophile. Just report the fucking faggot and let the professionals sort out the charges and legal arguments.

Dude is not an investigator, not a cop, not a prosecutor or an attorney. He's literally just a bum with delusions of grandeur. This issue is just some water muddying irrelevance.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
Plus, most of the time when she was replying to him, he would just continue talking. Part of it going in circles was probably because he didn't hear what she said!
IDK why the conversation just didn't go like this:

ANNA: "She said she was 16 in 2009!"
RXG: "Here's a screen saying she was 19 in 2011, but she still could have been 16 then. he's not guilty under child luring laws, which expire on one's 16th birthday."
ANNA: "That's still was morally reprehensible though."
RXG: "Perhaps but as legal as shooting barely legal in porn one day after they turn 18. It's still legal."

There are like a million mitigating factors here though and tbh, Ryan is not right, Ryan merely has a theory and he's applying the outcome of one specific case to his theory and acting like that means shit. At the end of the day, it's not anyone's responsibility to decide what is and isn't actionable according to the Supreme Court of Canada except the cops and the crown attorney. No one in thier right mind goes searching for obscure Supreme Court rulings before they report a pedophile. Just report the fucking faggot and let the professionals sort out the charges and legal arguments.

Dude is not an investigator, not a cop, not a prosecutor or an attorney. He's literally just a bum with delusions of grandeur. This issue is just the water muddying irrelevance.
@RXG could have just pointed out that they both agree that even if Jane was 19 in 2011, she have been 16 in 2009, and that the child luring laws expire at 16. I mean, tbf, I think this law is bullshit and that reaching out to anyone sexually under 18 when you're even two years over should be a crime, but it doesn't appear to be. Any more than it isn't a crime to shoot porn three days after the performers' 18th birthday and then put their DOB and DOP (date of production) at the beginning of a barely legal tape.

It doesn't mean that Anna was lying. She never represented that in fact Jane was younger than 16 in 2009. I don't know where he got that from.

Where I do fault him, severely, is 1) getting into JY's socials to begin with and 2) going on a crusade after that. As @WGkitty and others have said, that's way above what you'd ask a documentarian to do. His IP argument holds no water here--it's extremely easy for anyone to use TOR, and all he did was inject doubt into who was deleting/adding to the account (i.e. the JY pool/tampon comment that went away). @RXG was there basically for reputation management and shitted that up royally by sharing Facetimes with probably the most antagonistic JY reporter out there, then went on his own crusade after saying he had no financial incentive from JY/MY.
 
Last edited:

EmpireOfTheClouds

They climbed aboard their silver ghost
kiwifarms.net
Your wish is my command.

Cut for length and personal info. I had no recollection that this call was over 27 minutes.

This was likely the most intense episode of gaslighting I have ever experienced. It was abusive as hell. Listen to how assured he is when he says "you are putting words in my mouth," and calling me "deluded" and a "disgusting human being." The suggestions that I was getting in the way of progress of the victims and ruining the chance to get Yaniv put in prison are when I lost my shit.

You all heard the original audio. Did I twist his words?

Some notes for context/points of interest:

1. I started this audio when I was asking him to re-initiate a FaceTime and pull up the conversation between Jane Doe and Yaniv again, so I could walk him through what happened like a little exceptional baby.
2. He didn't understand this, he thought (and was kind of freaking out) I was telling him to pull up logs?
3. At 4:28 or so, he mentions the "mini skirt-rape" example, I had texted basically that same thing to him just before he called me. So him parroting it back to me as if it were his original thought was pretty funny.
4. 1:04 -- This was one of the things he called out that came before the bikini line. I also have the audio for this.
5. 1:19 -- "Because you've picked sides!" when I said I would care more about Yaniv's conduct than the girl he was speaking to.
6. 1:30 -- Admission that Yaniv claimed to have committed illegal acts. Again, goes against what he claimed to KF.
7. 8:35-9:40 -- VERRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYY IMPORTANT. Ryan simultaneously claiming 1) That he lied to Yaniv because it's "standard journalistic practice," 2) that he never lied to Yaniv, 3) accusing me of being on Yaniv's side for telling him that I've never lied to anyone.

Just absolute insanity.

Listening to this again was a mindfuck.

I need a goddamn coffee.
Jesus H fucking Christ.

First off thank you @yesthatanna for joining and sharing this with us. You helped re-rail this thread from an autism fest to quality content. And also props to you for admitting a mistake, something @RXG clearly cannot do. Speaking of which...

Holy fuck that call. I can't think of someone more concerned with being right than supporting their own cause in my life. I told him basically to his face he clearly has a personality disorder... If only I had known what a fucking understatement that was. Vile.

Ryan, if you're reading this, how does it feel for everybody to have been right about what narcissistic sociopath you are? You seriously need help.
 

yesthatanna

kiwifarms.net
It doesn't mean that Anna was lying. She never represented that in fact Jane was younger than 16 in 2009. I don't know where he got that from.
I have no idea either. But the idiot didn’t listen to a word I said. Ever. Like I mentioned before, he didn’t care about getting the chronology or even the identities of the girls sorted properly.

The only thing is what I mentioned in my original post containing the audio of Ryan disparaging Jane Doe... I was so confused, and trying to wrap my head around his victim blaming, pedo apologist nonsense that I gave him an example of “so a 13 year old..”

This wasn’t referring to Jane Doe. This was a random example I created to try and understand why he was saying. And even if he did think Jane was 13, and that my example was me referring to Jane — WHY THE HELL DID HE CONTINUE TO DEFEND YANIV AND SUGGEST SHE WAS IN THE WRONG??

Also: Your suggestion of how the conversation should have gone is entirely contingent on Ryan having known what he was talking about at any point. He was incapable of listening or absorbing the information I was giving him. I obviously knew Jane’s story and chronology a bit better, and in the part of the tape you didn’t hear pre-disparaging comment but Ryan Gordon, I was desperately trying to get him to understand her story and situation.
 

Gustav Schuchardt

Trans exclusionary radical feminazi.
kiwifarms.net
@JRumpel3 is a different story. She was on multiple platforms that allow kids or were even youth-oriented, divulging her age and images of her growing up as far back as 2012. She lives stateside where the age of consent is 16, but she's shown timestamped screens showing that a lot of the perv behavior occurred in fact before her 16th birthday. And in any case, it still is illegal for anyone across a state or international border to entice her to come visit them with a sexual purpose until 18.
This raises the interesting possibility that US immigration might decide to not admit him next time he tries to enter the US. I mean @JRumpel3 sent screenshots to the FBI, right? The FBI presumably know how to generate the special inter Three Letter Agency transaction that gets non citizens declared Persona Non Grata with US immigration.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
-
I have no idea either. But the idiot didn’t listen to a word I said. Ever. Like I mentioned before, he didn’t care about getting the chronology or even the identities of the girls sorted properly.

The only thing is what I mentioned in my original post containing the audio of Ryan disparaging Jane Doe... I was so confused, and trying to wrap my head around his victim blaming, pedo apologist nonsense that I gave him an example of “so a 13 year old..”

This wasn’t referring to Jane Doe. This was a random example I created to try and understand why he was saying. And even if he did think Jane was 13, and that my example was me referring to Jane — WHY THE HELL DID HE CONTINUE TO DEFEND YANIV AND SUGGEST SHE WAS IN THE WRONG??
OK, but you said the blowup happened over the Jane Doe conversation. Were you asserting to him that the child luring law applied to Jane at 16 in 2009, was he asserting to you that JY met Jane in 2011 and that's why child luring laws wouldn't apply, or both?

Further, can you answer whether my interpretation of the canlii reference above is correct--that the child luring law no longer applies on a person's 16th birthday? It seems other laws--such as dissemination of lewd images (dick shots) would apply until the minor hit 18, but I'm in the states. Can you clarify?

Assuming that the latter is true, in your article (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-jessica-yaniv-admits-to-child-predation-doxxing-blaire-white-and-a-new-accuser-emerges/) you didn't state when the lewd images were sent.

Did Doe say explicitly she received nudes/dick shots from JY before she turned 18?
 
Last edited:

SeeingRad

I might have a pussy but I'm not a cat.
kiwifarms.net
IDK why the conversation just didn't go like this:

ANNA: "She said she was 16 in 2009!"
RXG: "Here's a screen saying she was 19 in 2011, but she still could have been 16 then. he's not guilty under child luring laws, which expire on one's 16th birthday."
ANNA: "That's still was morally reprehensible though."
RXG: "Perhaps but as legal as shooting barely legal in porn one day after they turn 18. It's still legal."



@RXG could have just pointed out that they both agree that even if Jane was 19 in 2011, she have been 16 in 2009, and that the child luring laws expire at 16. I mean, tbf, I think this law is bullshit and that reaching out to anyone sexually under 18 when you're even two years over should be a crime, but it doesn't appear to be. Any more than it isn't a crime to shoot porn three days after the performers' 18th birthday and then put their DOB and DOP (date of production) at the beginning of a barely legal tape.

It doesn't mean that Anna was lying. She never represented that in fact Jane was younger than 16 in 2009. I don't know where he got that from.

Where I do fault him, severely, is 1) getting into JY's socials to begin with and 2) going on a crusade after that. As @WGkitty and others have said, that's way above what you'd ask a documentarian to do. His IP argument holds no water here--it's extremely easy for anyone to use TOR, and all he did was inject doubt into who was deleting/adding to the account (i.e. the JY pool/tampon comment that went away). @RXG was there basically for reputation management and shitted that up royally by sharing Facetimes with probably the most antagonistic JY reporter out there, then went on his own crusade after saying he had no financial incentive from JY/MY.
Ryan's true intentions have always been unclear. The reason conversations don't go easily with him is because he hides his true motives. He has claimed different motives at different times and to different people. His story changes based on who he is talking to and when he is talking to them. That is why he frustrates everyone he speaks with. That is why conversations with him don't go the way you would expect them to go.
 

yesthatanna

kiwifarms.net
-


OK, but you said the blowup happened over the Jane Doe conversation. Were you asserting to him that the child luring law applied to Jane at 16 in 2009, was he asserting to you that JY met Jane in 2011 and that's why child luring laws wouldn't apply, or both?

Further, can you answer whether my interpretation of the canlii reference above is correct--that the child luring law no longer applies on a person's 16th birthday? It seems other laws--such as dissemination of lewd images (dick shots) would apply until the minor hit 18, but I'm in the states. Can you clarify?

Assuming that the latter is true, in your article (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-jessica-yaniv-admits-to-child-predation-doxxing-blaire-white-and-a-new-accuser-emerges/) you didn't state when the lewd images were sent.

Did Doe say explicitly she received nudes/dick shots from JY before she turned 18?
It did. It happened as we were reading the chat between Doe and Yaniv, and he began criticizing her words.

I have to clarify something that I feel he may have communicated — I NEVER spoke to him about child luring laws. Ever. I never brought them up. He never brought them up to me.

I’m not a lawyer, so I certainly don’t know the law well enough to say what law Yaniv is violating when he’s sexting with minors. I never discussed the law with Ryan Gordon. Full stop.

At TPM, the only laws we’ve ever discussed in relation to the Yaniv case are the close-in-age exceptions that exist in the consent statues regarding the age between the two parties engaged in a sexual activity (whatever that may be) being more than 5 years apart if one of those parties is less than 16. So effectively, when the age of consent was increased to 16 in Canada, the government implemented a provision that protected 14 and 15 year olds so long as the person they were engaged in a sexual activity with was less than 5 years older.

We discussed them because some of these cases go back many, many years, and we wanted to make sure Yaniv was always more than 6 years older than the girls he was talking to. This was the case in all of the girls we documented.

As for the child luring law... I am not entirely sure. I am not a lawyer, so take it with that in mind! Under 16 would certainly not include 16 year olds in that wording, so perhaps Jane Doe would not fall into this category. Where she would fall, however, if she can recover those images would be in the distribution of indecent/obscene materials to a child — which is illegal. There’s some cases that discuss this here:


And yes, she did receive those dick/nudes when she was below the age of 18. She was also encouraged to reciprocate (both by Yaniv and by Yaniv allegedly via the Krista Gunn persona). She says she never did.

That in and of itself, as far as I understand, would constitute the solicitation of a minor for sexual acts, if not the solicitation of child pornography.
 

Dumb Bitch Smoothie

Any time now, faggots.
kiwifarms.net
And yes, she did receive those dick/nudes when she was below the age of 18. She was also encouraged to reciprocate (both by Yaniv and by Yaniv allegedly via the Krista Gunn persona). She says she never did.

That in and of itself, as far as I understand, would constitute the solicitation of a minor for sexual acts, if not the solicitation of child pornography.
I'm pretty sure the law for electronic/internet solicitation and distribution of porn as well as sending explicit images and sexual material is 18, but I could be talking out my ass here. I think it's pretty consistent.

But damn if RG ain't using some mental olympics to try to make it okay.

JY is 100% a predator and there is absolutely no coat of proverbial paint that can be put on that disaster in a dress that will make them ever look good.
 

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
IDK why the conversation just didn't go like this:

ANNA: "She said she was 16 in 2009!"
RXG: "Here's a screen saying she was 19 in 2011, but she still could have been 16 then. he's not guilty under child luring laws, which expire on one's 16th birthday."
ANNA: "That's still was morally reprehensible though."
RXG: "Perhaps but as legal as shooting barely legal in porn one day after they turn 18. It's still legal."



@RXG could have just pointed out that they both agree that even if Jane was 19 in 2011, she have been 16 in 2009, and that the child luring laws expire at 16. I mean, tbf, I think this law is bullshit and that reaching out to anyone sexually under 18 when you're even two years over should be a crime, but it doesn't appear to be. Any more than it isn't a crime to shoot porn three days after the performers' 18th birthday and then put their DOB and DOP (date of production) at the beginning of a barely legal tape.

It doesn't mean that Anna was lying. She never represented that in fact Jane was younger than 16 in 2009. I don't know where he got that from.

Where I do fault him, severely, is 1) getting into JY's socials to begin with and 2) going on a crusade after that. As @WGkitty and others have said, that's way above what you'd ask a documentarian to do. His IP argument holds no water here--it's extremely easy for anyone to use TOR, and all he did was inject doubt into who was deleting/adding to the account (i.e. the JY pool/tampon comment that went away). @RXG was there basically for reputation management and shitted that up royally by sharing Facetimes with probably the most antagonistic JY reporter out there, then went on his own crusade after saying he had no financial incentive from JY/MY.
I fault him for even having the idea to pull this shit in the first place. Literally everything he did is a fault from step one. Ryan shouldn't need to point out anything because he's not an investigator and it's really none of his goddamned business in the first place and he should never even be in a conversation with Anna anyway.

Since he did get involved though, the obvious answer when one discovers someone may very well be a pedophile though, to anyone who is not an insane lunatic that is, is to report that shit to the proper authorities and get the entire fuck out of the situation immediately. Only a crazy person would continue to sift for evidence, very likely fucking all that evidence up before the cops got a chance to look at it, and then start prosecuting the case in your head ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT where you decide it might get tossed after numerous appeals. So you don't report to the police until you can be certain that if the perp appeals all the way to the highest court in the land, that it won't be overturned. Fucking researching legal cases and shit. My word, how is that defensible?

Like, What. The. Fuck. Just report the goddamn potential crime, Ryan. There is absolutely no defense for this guy. None whatsoever. He was never in the right from the second he lied to Yaniv to get access to his socials to the point where he won't report a crime until he, in his infinite legal knowledge, is certain the crown attorney can prosecute. None of this, NONE is any of his business and he has some nerve. Seriously.

Anna, shouldn't have trusted him or spoke to him at all in the first place. That's on her but she clearly knows that and has apologized. I don't know what else she can do but her crime is basically a nothingburger compared to anything Ryan has done. He is absolutely reprehensible and giving him even the tiniest bit of leeway is more than he deserves.
 
Tags
None