- Joined
- Oct 5, 2020
Does it make a difference if the house is in his wife's name?
Trashfire Adam Kovic & Ryan Haywood (The Dead Pixel / Koko / Pikovic, and James Ryan Haywoood / Iron Ryan / The Mad King / Vagabond) - Rooster Teeth associates who've sent horrifying nudes behind their families' backs in what looks like a gay catfish
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
Peepeepoopoo1596
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2021
lol calm down. I've never seen the show.
Fandoms are for homosexuals btw
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2017
Every time I see something in regards to Rooster Teeth, it just gets worse.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
Texas is a property-in-common state. If they acquired the property while they were married, it is shared property. If they married after the purchase, it is debatable.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
I would be so much happier if this was criminal. This just makes me feel it's a girl with buyer's remorse. Some woman that had sex with him, found out that she isn't "daddy's special little kitten" (lol he was married), and now after 2 years or so (why wait so long?) files a civil suit because that way she can get cash, more clout in the fandom, and revenge justice. There were a few women who had really unbelievable stories, I think some were even debunked.
As far as I recall there was only one underage girl and I think even she admitted she lied about her age to him. This will most likely end up being nothing, sadly. Because the guy did some really criminal shit (like taking off the rubber without the girl's consent), and even more morally bankrupt shit, but that's up to him and his wife. I wish she'd have fucked him over. Or maybe she knew and just didn't care, some women don't care about sex after having kids, so maybe she let him live the rockstar life since she didn't want to fuck anymore.
Btw I don't understand the US legal system at all, how can you have a civil suit for say, being statutory raped, and it won't automatically turn into a criminal investigation by the state? Even at the point when it gets filed? It's strange to me that you can take up a judge's time and the worst thing that can happen to the perp is losing money (unless he's found in contempt of the court). I mean I get it when it's a car accident and the party that caused it hasn't payed up. But when it's sexual and possibly involving a minor? Baffles me.
Edit: I don't mind the politisperg stickers, but I do want to make it clear that I am just confused by it and don't judge it on any deeper level. I am simply used to things being handled differently.
As far as I recall there was only one underage girl and I think even she admitted she lied about her age to him. This will most likely end up being nothing, sadly. Because the guy did some really criminal shit (like taking off the rubber without the girl's consent), and even more morally bankrupt shit, but that's up to him and his wife. I wish she'd have fucked him over. Or maybe she knew and just didn't care, some women don't care about sex after having kids, so maybe she let him live the rockstar life since she didn't want to fuck anymore.
Btw I don't understand the US legal system at all, how can you have a civil suit for say, being statutory raped, and it won't automatically turn into a criminal investigation by the state? Even at the point when it gets filed? It's strange to me that you can take up a judge's time and the worst thing that can happen to the perp is losing money (unless he's found in contempt of the court). I mean I get it when it's a car accident and the party that caused it hasn't payed up. But when it's sexual and possibly involving a minor? Baffles me.
Edit: I don't mind the politisperg stickers, but I do want to make it clear that I am just confused by it and don't judge it on any deeper level. I am simply used to things being handled differently.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases only require that the jury believe your story is more likely. You can put a sob story before a civil court and have it succeed where it would fail in a criminal case. However, in a civil case, the only thing you can get out of it is money (if the action happened in the past) or an injunction against something happening (if it's ongoing).
Thus civil cases are mostly involved with business issues or financial disputes. When they involve something that *would* be criminal, it's because the "victim" can't prove their case well enough for a prosecutor to bring charges, but they still think they get some money out of it.
The vast majority of civil cases are injury/liability suits. For instance you slipped and fell because a business had a wet floor or something. Or somebody hit you with their car and you want to take them for all they're worth. There's a reason many civil attorneys are called "ambulance chasers". They sue people on behalf of victims and get a big cut of the money.
Civil suits are a bludgeon wielded by corporations that want to stop individuals from doing something. It costs money, but they pay full-time attorneys to do stuff like this. In this way they can apply control over individuals by trying to bankrupt them in a lawsuit.
The other, much rarer exception, is when someone (usually a company) keeps doing something and won't stop. e.g. chemical plant is dumping waste and government won't do anything about it, so you bring a civil suit to get them to stop. In this situation attorneys either work pro bono., or think they can get a cut of a judgement and thus take the case on contingency.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
"it's only a civil suit, not a criminal prosecution" isn't working out too well for Prince Andrew currently and I don't think it will work out too well for this dude if there's a civil finding against him, either. A civil finding that you're a creep is still a court finding that yes, you're a creep. That kind of mud tends to stick.
Alter Ego
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
I'm only vaguely aware of the continuous controversies surround RT. Is there merit to this lawsuit, or is it just a disgruntled female associate looking for a shakedown?
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2021
Also there's no 5th Admendment protections in civil cases which is how they got Cosby and why he got his conviction later ruled unconstitutional as the prosecutor specifically dropped criminal charges so Cosby would be forced to testify to his criminal conduct in a civil lawsuit, then used that testimony to prosecute him
ChoChoTwister
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2020
I don't remember the laws about this but for the girl who lied about her age and was a minor, maybe the suit is because of the multiple laws he would've broken at the time of the incident? Statutory rape, travel to have sex with a minor and possibly cheese pizza? I could imagine that a good reason for this to happen years later.
Or even worse, there's another victim we don't know about. It's not impossible given what we do know.
Or even worse, there's another victim we don't know about. It's not impossible given what we do know.
Last edited:
ScrappyLobsterchu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2019
Maybe I'm retarded but how does a Jane Doe plaintiff work? How does that work with your 6th amendment rights? legalfags explain
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2021
I'm kinda hoping we get more shit coming out of this. Like Geoff having another panic attack/ breakdown on stream like whenever a black chick opens her maw to say something retarded, but x10. Maybe we will even get shit about the crappy animation and crunch they force their employees or maybe Jack will be more insufferable. I miss the early Drunk Tank podcast before they become detached rich cunts, I always hated Gus though, that guy was just a bitch.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
Is that even possible?
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2016
Hope he gets his ass destroyed in court.
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
You got sauce on that? Shit sounds depressing.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2014
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
Holy shit I remember when this stuff first dropped.
Ryan is the one that wanted them in pain right?
Ryan is the one that wanted them in pain right?
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2015
Went in dry, went too hard, made them bleed.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
A civil suit isn't about illegal things someone has done, it's about harm someone has done to you. So, for instance, interstate travel wouldn't even be a factor at all because them traveling did not harm you at all. For harm to have been done though, it has to be shown that it's not your fault that the harm happened, but the fault of the person you're suing, this is where potentially-illegal acts can come into play. You are NOT prosecuting them for those illegal acts though, you are prosecuting them for the effects they had on you.
So for instance, with cheese pizza, you're not suing because it's cheese pizza, you're suing because of the emotional harm of the person having the cheese pizza caused you. Now, if you willingly gave up pizza of yourself, you'd have no case since you did it to yourself, but in the case of cheese pizza, by virtue of you being a minor, that places the responsibility on the person you're suing, and it's not your responsibility.
Again, you're not punishing them for having cheese pizza, you're collecting recompense for the emotional harm it caused you.
Incidentally, regarding the interstate travel, people misunderstand the law. US law makes it illegal to cross state lines for *commercial* sex with someone under 18. This usually doesn't need to be enforced since it's already illegal in every state, it's more meant to prosecute people who travel to other countries where they might not be prosecuted by local authorities for having sex with a 17-year-old prostitute.
For non-commercial sex, it is only illegal to travel for the purpose of having sex with someone under 16 or where the law prohibits it. This means that they won't prosecute someone going to see their 16-year-old girlfriend who lives across a town that happens to straddle a state line, provided it's legal there. This is kind of important as most states have an age of consent of 16, and no state has had it lower since Hawaii raised it from 14 in 2001, Georgia from 14 in 1996, and New Mexico from 13 in 1987. Thus 16 doesn't affect domestic travel at all, but only focuses on international travel.
The confrontation clause of the 6th amendment only applies to a criminal trial. Most of the protections for defendants in the constitution only apply for criminal cases. In a civil suit, you are not being charged with a crime, you are being billed for damages, or requested to stop infringing on the plaintiff's rights.
This is why civil suits can be used by rich companies/people to bully poor people. The poor people do not have the right to an attorney and are left up the creek. (This is also why SLAPP laws were passed, so that defendants could countersue with an attorney that gets a cut of the judgement, when a case with little to no merit is being used purely as financial abuse of the defendant. Unfortunately SLAPP can be hard to prove and thus only stops the most egregious of cases)
That said, testimony is still needed and a defendant can probably figure out who the person is from the evidence. Unless they have absolutely no idea who the person is (which they can enter as a defense). The Jane Doe status isn't really meant to hide your identity from the defense, it's to hide it from the public record.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2022