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.

[yesthatanna]

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]

@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]

-

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/b...xxing-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?

 

[SeeingRad]

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]

-


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/b...xxing-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:

http://www.allard.ubc.ca/sites/www.allard.ubc.ca/files/uploads/Perrin/social_media_crime_in_canada_-_annotated_criminal_code_-_perrin.pdf

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]

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]

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.

 

[Okkervils]

Blaire is discussing this situation a bit at the moment on a stream here. Not sure if it's worthy of it's own thread yet.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

Blaire is discussing this situation a bit at the moment on a stream here. Not sure if it's worthy of it's own thread yet.

She's fishing for attention and superchats. Nothing of importance besides Blaire claiming she doesn't want to be involved anymore.

 

[SourDiesel]

Blaire is discussing this situation a bit at the moment on a stream here. Not sure if it's worthy of it's own thread yet.

Amazing. Of course she isn't finished talking about this yet.

 

[Okkervils]

She's fishing for attention and superchats. Nothing of importance besides Blaire claiming she doesn't want to be involved anymore.

Completely agree, just didn't want to neglect posting it in case something interesting is shared. Which is extremely unlikely but... lol.

 

[Orange//Net]

I'll be archiving the live stream and posting it probably in the Blaire White thread because honestly, there's nothing really related to Yaniv going on here.

 

[yesthatanna]

Blaire is discussing this situation a bit at the moment on a stream here. Not sure if it's worthy of it's own thread yet.

Just listened to the first bit where she mentioned me/TPM.

She did totally stop responding without explanation (and this was just communication between her and I relayed after her video on Gordon and we were sharing experiences, and after Jessica’s dox), and I very much dislike that she framed it as an issue of trust.

I know she said “she gave me no reason to distrust her,” but that’s still not a very nice way to frame it — Especially putting mentions of me immediately after those of Ryan Gordon. This is after we went out of our way to include her story and experiences with Gordon as the bookfront on the Jane Doe piece.

Not pleased with that at all.

 

[SourDiesel]

Ok again, for reference, the child luring law in Canada:

172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with

• (a) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under subsection 153(1), section 155 or 163.1, subsection 212(1) or (4) or section 271, 272 or 273 with respect to that person;
• (b) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of sixteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 280 with respect to that person; or
• (c) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of fourteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2) or section 281 with respect to that person.
• Punishment
  (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
• Marginal note: presumption re age
  (3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed that the person was under that age.
• Marginal note:No defence
  (4) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least eighteen years of age, sixteen years or fourteen years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.

• 2002, c. 13, s. 8
• 2007, c. 20, s. 1

All references to section numbers and subsection numbers are referring to various child sexual abuse laws. If you want to know more, you can look up the various section numbers and simply follow the references.

Before we start going into blogs about supreme court decisions that occurred in specific cases after defendants appeal, maybe we could start with the basic law. Anyone can look this up on the website I am about to link. All Canadian laws are listed there.

ARCHIVED - Criminal Code

Federal laws of canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Now can we please stop sperging about whether or not Ryan had a right to blah blah blah? He has no fucking idea what he's talking about and harassing Anna to answer legal questions isn't helping a damned thing. No one who isn't a legal professional should be trying to try this case in their heads. Again, just report the fucking pedophile to the police and let them decide if any laws have been broken.

Edit: let's see what's under some of the sections referenced in subsection 1a - under 18 years. Here's section 163(1):

Obscene materials

• 163 (1) Every person commits an offence who makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates or has in their possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or any other obscene thing.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Ok? So yes, it is very much illegal for Jonathan Yaniv to send pictures of his dick to 16 year old girls in Canada.

 

[SourDiesel]

I am just a layperson. So are you. So is Anna. We all agree on this.

But still, as a layperson, I can look up a cite that's on a respected legal forum in Canada and ask reasonable questions about it. If a question came up stateside where I was familiar with said laws, I would be glad to point you to what I knew down to the sub-cites instead of telling you to look them up. Let's not get into a @ComeGetSome argument here. If you have the cites, bring them. If you don't want to spend the time getting them, I won't blame you, but don't blame me either. I brought a legit reference and asked @yesthatanna to comment. And that is all.

In fact, @yesthatanna clarified that @RXG never did bring up any laws even to , and in fact @yesthatanna was aware and she and TPM actually did verify against "Romeo and Juliet" clauses that exist in Canadian law even though she's not a lawyer either.

You seem to be implying that only PD and lawyers can be legitimately involved as third parties. That would exclude @yesthatanna. I don't agree.

I literally just went out of my way to both cite and lay it all out for you. People have been going around claiming it's not illegal if she was over 16.

Anna is reporting on a story. That's literally all she's doing. She's not trying this case she's telling a story.

Ryan was trying this case though and you seem to be trying this case too, tbh. All anyone had to do was report the alleged crime to the police. That's all. And Ryan seemed to not be willing to do that until he himself played investigator, crown attorney, judge AND jury and decide himself of Yaniv's guilt. And it may be interesting and fun to do but I'm starting to feel like this isn't the thread for it. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by interrogating everyone tbh. We aren't going to crack this "case". There's no case to crack.

 

[SeeingRad]

I feel like the latest discussion belongs over here.

 

[wabbits]

Has anyone else wondered like I have whether the Gordon-Yaniv alliance broke up because Yaniv refused to pay Gordon for, as @2nd_time_user said above, reputation management services?

When their arrangement broke up, the Miriam Yaniv account tweeted praise for Jonathan for not having fallen for "a scam," and while Gordon's behavior during his week of Yanivery would have been weird behavior for a documentarian, it was pretty standard for reputation management: Take over the SM, cool down your client's public disputes, contact media to find out what they're doing and chill any negatives they're pursuing, pitch positive stories - like by pitching a doco about your loved-by-all client's activism.

Had Yaniv not understood he had to pay for reputation management? Or had Gordon offered him a week of free service to prove how well worth paying for his work would be but when the week ended, Yaniv didn't want to pay? Did Gordon even go so far as to raise his price once he had Yaniv's SM passwords and 40 hours of recorded conversations that gave him incriminating information?

Whoa, am I accusing Gordon of blackmail? Nah, it could have gone more like, "Shit, Jessica, you need more help than I thought. I'm not going to have time for my other projects because I'm going to have to sink all my time into talking to reporters about how those girls weren't minors and getting inside the RCMP investigation to find out what they've got. That's double, m'lady. I've got to raise my rates."

Thoughts?

 

[WGkitty]

Has anyone else wondered like I have whether the Gordon-Yaniv alliance broke up because Yaniv refused to pay Gordon for, as @2nd_time_user said above, reputation management services?

When their arrangement broke up, the Miriam Yaniv account tweeted praise for Jonathan for not having fallen for "a scam," and while Gordon's behavior during his week of Yanivery would have been weird behavior for a documentarian, it was pretty standard for reputation management: Take over the SM, cool down your client's public disputes, contact media to find out what they're doing and chill any negatives they're pursuing, pitch positive stories - like by pitching a doco about your loved-by-all client's activism.

Had Yaniv not understood he had to pay for reputation management? Or had Gordon offered him a week of free service to prove how well worth paying for his work would be but when the week ended, Yaniv didn't want to pay? Did Gordon even go so far as to raise his price once he had Yaniv's SM passwords and 40 hours of recorded conversations that gave him incriminating information?

Whoa, am I accusing Gordon of blackmail? Nah, it could have gone more like, "Shit, Jessica, you need more help than I thought. I'm not going to have time for my other projects because I'm going to have to sink all my time into talking to reporters about how those girls weren't minors and getting inside the RCMP investigation to find out what they've got. That's double, m'lady. I've got to raise my rates."

Thoughts?

This is the most likely story of all this that I've heard TBH. None of the rest of what he's saying even makes any sense and details keep changing. It's almost like he made it all up and can't keep his story straight. It's also fits why Yaniv called him his agent and he represented himself as Yaniv's agent.

Also why he wouldn't answer my questions about the original scope of the agreement and can't post his original agreement with Yaniv even with dox redacted!

 

[yesthatanna]

Everything is cool, @SourDiesel ans @2nd_time_user! We are all armchair lawyers, detectives, psychiatrists... hell, I’m an armchair journalist xD

I am happy to answer any questions. That’s why I came here. To clear the popper-gassed air, as it were.

Folks can have whatever opinions they’d like about me and the whole situation. I just wanted to get the truth out there, or at least give as much info as I had in my possession for you to judge yourself.

I never expected people to be as nice and responsive as they have been here to my story and my details! So I’m grateful for that, and the chance to clear so much up. It was a huge relief for me, to be honest.

On the issue of the name revelations, of course I regret it. I feel horrible.

I only wish for people to know that Gordon was not always unstable. When he started off, it was 100% pro-victim, anti-Yaniv, and he used a lot of what I now realize was emotional manipulation (including the CSA reveal) that made me feel he was trustworthy and understood what all of this was about. It literally wasn’t until that night that he revealed his instability power level.

I have tried to lend a hand to a lot of other journalists, media, even citizen reporters who have come to me about Yaniv. It’s never been about an “exclusive scoop” for me, so I never had any reservations about sharing what I knew. Gordon was in a particularly unique position, convincing me he had totally sidelined Yaniv, and had the chance to get information no one else would have been able to. I shared things with him under this impression only, and under the conditions I’ve listed in other posts (1. getting closure for Jane, 2. after his massive fuck up and me trying to clarify shit and prevent any further fuck ups).

But that’s if he were true and honest. And he wasn’t. He was an unstable maniac either a) out to make a buck on the back of the Yaniv story, or b) in cohort with the Yaniv clan.

I never thought that things would ever get to this point. I don’t know how I could have predicted there was a psychopath out there who genuinely wished harm upon these girls, or would have taken their information and tried to fuck their lives up. Maybe I’m green behind the ears, but the only person I thought was that sick was Yaniv himself.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Everything is cool, @SourDiesel ans @2nd_time_user! We are all armchair lawyers, detectives, psychiatrists... hell, I’m an armchair journalist xD

I am happy to answer any questions. That’s why I came here. To clear the popper-gassed air, as it were.

Folks can have whatever opinions they’d like about me and the whole situation. I just wanted to get the truth out there, or at least give as much info as I had in my possession for you to judge yourself.

I never expected people to be as nice and responsive as they have been here to my story and my details! So I’m grateful for that, and the chance to clear so much up. It was a huge relief for me, to be honest.

On the issue of the name revelations, of course I regret it. I feel horrible.

I only wish for people to know that Gordon was not always unstable. When he started off, it was 100% pro-victim, anti-Yaniv, and he used a lot of what I now realize was emotional manipulation (including the CSA reveal) that made me feel he was trustworthy and understood what all of this was about. It literally wasn’t until that night that he revealed his instability power level.

I have tried to lend a hand to a lot of other journalists, media, even citizen reporters who have come to me about Yaniv. It’s never been about an “exclusive scoop” for me, so I never had any reservations about sharing what I knew. Gordon was in a particularly unique position, convincing me he had totally sidelined Yaniv, and had the chance to get information no one else would have been able to. I shared things with him under this impression only, and under the conditions I’ve listed in other posts (1. getting closure for Jane, 2. after his massive fuck in and me trying to clarify shit and prevent any further fuck ups).

But that’s if he were true and honest. And he wasn’t. He was an unstable maniac either a) out to make a buck on the back of the Yaniv story, or b) in cohort with the Yaniv clan.

I never thought that things would ever get to this point. I don’t know how I could have predicted there was a psychopath out there who genuinely wished harm upon these girls, or would have taken their information and tried to fuck their lives up. Maybe I’m green behind the ears, but the only person I thought was that sick was Yaniv himself.

Hey, @yesthatanna. I would have recommended beforehand that you got your pub to send you to some AP/ASME seminars beforehand, but you learned through hard knocks more than any seminar would have told you. At this point, I'd still recommend that you go but this time as a speaker. ASME is American-based, but welcomes Canadians as well as non-daily publications. You can get accepted and go for free. What happened to you is a valuable lesson that all editors should be reinforcing to their reporters at any level.