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

[Mason Verger]

Or even worse, there's another victim we don't know about. It's not impossible given what we do know.

He was about to hit double digits on accusers if I recall, so it’s VERY possible. Especially if this one was smart enough to take her case to an actual lawyer and not Reddit for asspats and a free achievement Hunter merch.

 

[I'm not a Robot]

Spoiler: Plaintiff's Original Petition

Jane Doe alleges that she began exchanging messages with Ryan Haywood on Snapchat in July 2017. She was 16 at the time, and told him that she was attending a school for children with special needs. The conversations turned sexual and he offered to pay her $300 for sex. They met up in New York in December 2017 and the two had sex. It was painful and she cried.

It appears that "Jane Doe" is Julie Parkinson @PandaBear_Julie based on the similarities of their stories.

A new underage victim?

https://archive.fo/Ma9bV

Ryan "Retard Rapist" Haywood.

If she really is as special needs and incapable of judgment as she portrays herself, then she has absolutely no business having a social media account on any platform.

 

[Spud]

he offered to pay her $300 for sex. They met up in New York in December 2017 and the two had sex. It was painful and she cried.

If she's accepted the money for the act wouldn't that hurt her case? As Ryan's attorney could push that cause she took the money the act the sex becomes consensual even if it was painful for her.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

Jane Doe alleges that she began exchanging messages with Ryan Haywood on Snapchat in July 2017. She was 16 at the time, and told him that she was attending a school for children with special needs. The conversations turned sexual and he offered to pay her $300 for sex. They met up in New York in December 2017 and the two had sex. It was painful and she cried.

It appears that "Jane Doe" is Julie Parkinson @PandaBear_Julie based on the similarities of their stories.

Spoiler: Plaintiff's Original Petition

View attachment 2904308 View attachment 2904309 View attachment 2904310 View attachment 2904311View attachment 2904313 View attachment 2904314 View attachment 2904315 View attachment 2904317View attachment 2904318 View attachment 2904319

OK, yeah, reading this, it's definitely about extracting money from RT. It's a bit of a long shot since RT doesn't seem to have any involvement in the situation (basically they're claiming that RT is responsible because they made Ryan famous, and Ryan used his fame to get in her pants).

If she's accepted the money for the act wouldn't that hurt her case? As Ryan's attorney could push that cause she took the money the act the sex becomes consensual even if it was painful for her.

Not really, as paying for sex with a minor would be considered abusive. Also, it never claims she actually accepted the money. Also, if it happened in New York, the age of consent is 17 (although it doesn't say how old she was when the sex happened, only that she was 16 when she was contacted 6 months earlier)

EDIT: Yeah reading it it's definitely a money grab. It talks about how Ryan did terrible things and how RT is responsible for it. It also stresses legal issues that aren't relevant (Texas laws for conduct not in Texas, her age at the time of first messaging and that she's under 18 and was 16 at the time, but doesn't mention her age when they actually had sex).

The only thing of merit in it seems to be offering the $300, but even then they just use that in support of RT being responsible for Ryan's behavior.

My guess is they filed the suit when they couldn't get RT to pay up, in a bid to cause embarrassment. On brief inspection there's not a lot of merit to it unless she was 16 at the time they actually met up (which they very conspicuously do not mention).

tl;dr "I fucked him and it made me feel bad, so his employer owes me money."

That said, it could still succeed with the right judge/jury that was feeling particularly mad at older married guys banging teenagers. It could probably be beaten with enough effort, but it's just gross enough a case that they can use it to force a settlement to make it go away.

 

[Michael Janke]

If the information on the court website is correct then the Rt. Hon. Rhonda Hurley is the presiding judge, right? So she can choose to take the case. She looks like a mom, whatever Ryan is being sued for if it involves what he did with young girls I don't see it being very well received by her.
View attachment 2902049

View attachment 2902067
View attachment 2902134

Welp, get fucked Ryan.

I'm not American so I'm not 100% sure if that means she gets first dibs on cases but if so then it might be a real bad time to be Ryan Haywood.

juvenile court. that's not good.

 

[Jaded Optimist]

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.

So what about now that he went to New York after offering $300 for sex.

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

Oh hey look another case of weird nerds given money and influence and using it to probably do sick degenerate shit. I love this reality of ‘everything you like is fueled with abusive autistic human depravity’ It really makes me think well of myself for even liking it in the first place.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

So what about now that he went to New York after offering $300 for sex.

Only if that was the arrangement when he actually went. Document never mentions that it was, just that he offered once. (That said, even offering is a crime.)

EDIT: To put this another way, any monetary damages would have to result from the encounter being based on abusive behavior. This basically means the behavior would have had to be illegal. The earlier stuff gives a slight possibility of this argument being successful, again because the act causing damage itself doesn't necessarily have to be illegal. For instance it could be legal but under false pretenses. It's a pretty weak argument, but again it doesn't have the burden of proof of a criminal case so it's possible.

The ridiculous part of it is that in terms of who is responsible for the damages, the complaint levels them pretty much entirely at RT. THIS is the most shameless part of it and would probably not hold up in court, but that's not the point. The point is to shame RT (and by proxy, WarnerMedia and their deep pockets) into giving them money to avoid a drawn-out lawsuit.

 

[Spud]

Not really, as paying for sex with a minor would be considered abusive. Also, it never claims she actually accepted the money. Also, if it happened in New York, the age of consent is 17 (although it doesn't say how old she was when the sex happened, only that she was 16 when she was contacted 6 months earlier)

EDIT: Yeah reading it it's definitely a money grab. It talks about how Ryan did terrible things and how RT is responsible for it. It also stresses legal issues that aren't relevant (Texas laws for conduct not in Texas, her age at the time of first messaging and that she's under 18 and was 16 at the time, but doesn't mention her age when they actually had sex).

The only thing of merit in it seems to be offering the $300, but even then they just use that in support of RT being responsible for Ryan's behavior.

My guess is they filed the suit when they couldn't get RT to pay up, in a bid to cause embarrassment. On brief inspection there's not a lot of merit to it unless she was 16 at the time they actually met up (which they very conspicuously do not mention).

tl;dr "I fucked him and it made me feel bad, so his employer owes me money."

That said, it could still succeed with the right judge/jury that was feeling particularly mad at older married guys banging teenagers. It could probably be beaten with enough effort, but it's just gross enough a case that they can use it to force a settlement to make it go away.

If that's the case and he's flown her out to him then their gonna rape him in court. Also don't they charge it as assault of a minor if you flew someone to a state where the AOC is lower? Or is it more because you're crossing state lines? Does it work the other way around as well? (Older Person going to a state where the AOC is lower for the purpose of sex)

 

[I'm not a Robot]

The only thing of merit in it seems to be offering the $300

I'm wondering if that was what he was going to give her for a plane ticket. One of the other accusers posted a receipt for this exact amount.

 

[Jaded Optimist]

I'm wondering if that was what he was going to give her for a plane ticket. One of the other accusers posted a receipt for this exact amount.

View attachment 2904489 View attachment 2904462

She states that he offered to fly to see her in New York, so if that was when they met up, it wasn't money for a plane ticket.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

If that's the case and he's flown her out to him then their gonna rape him in court. Also don't they charge it as assault of a minor if you flew someone to a state where the AOC is lower? Or is it more because you're crossing state lines? Does it work the other way around as well? (Older Person going to a state where the AOC is lower for the purpose of sex)

According to the complaint, he flew to her.

If she was under the AoC at the time (17 in New York), it would be a violation. If she was 17 at the time, it would not. Unless I missed it, the complaint does not state that she was 16 at the time, only that she was 16 half a year earlier.

The really funny thing is that she is suing him (or more accurately, she's suing RT and WarnerMedia) in Texas for damages that ostensibly occurred in New York.

 

[Yaniv’s Hairy Balls]

It being a civil suit should say everything anyone needs to know about it. if this was anything of actual consequence it would be a criminal suit. I'm actually surprised you even get the anonymity of "Jane Doe" in a civil case, to be completely honest.

That’s not necessarily true. There’s a lot of times when people file a civil case just to gather information for a criminal o e. There is no “I plead the 5th”* for civil cases and you HAVE to be deposed if the judge calls for it. That’s what they did with Cosby (and why he got off- they promised they wouldn’t use his words against him criminally and then did, sleazy af). It’s really really common to see some one file civilly before criminally, even when there’s loss of life.

Edit: *I wasn’t clear on the “plead the 5th “, I explain in a later comment. The 5th is restricted in a civil trial where no criminal charges can come from it, and some states allow “negative inference”. Just to be clear.

 

[ServingCake]

Kinda weird, My vision started shaking as I got caught up with the info.

Does anyone know if the civil case has gone through yet or not? I know this popped up today but the dates on what I saw seem older.

 

[Dread First]

Regardless of whether or not Ryan Haywood is being extorted, let's not forget that he was exposed for being a sex pest who pressured a dozen or so women into having unprotected sex with him. I certainly don't like the idea of men being extorted in court for money, but Ryan dug his own grave this time. I can't really find myself finding any sympathy for the man, even on a "I know he's a fuckup but I don't think he's that big of a fuckup level."

We only know about the dozen or so women who came forward publicly. Imagine how many more chicks Ryan tried to pressure into sex but weren't smart enough to keep archives of their conversation. Soliciting a teenager for sex, or even masturbating to teenagers in general doesn't seem that out of character for him.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

That’s not necessarily true. There’s a lot of times when people file a civil case just to gather information for a criminal o e. There is no “I plead the 5th” for civil cases and you HAVE to be deposed if the judge calls for it. That’s what they did with Cosby (and why he got off- they promised they wouldn’t use his words against him criminally and then did, sleazy af). It’s really really common to see some one file civilly before criminally, even when there’s loss of life.

In the places I'm familiar with, you can plead the 5th in a civil trial if it's testimony that could result in criminal prosecution. Pleading the 5th doesn't just cover during a criminal trial, it covers EVERYTHING. The only thing you can't plead the 5th on during a civil trial is if it's testimony that might render you liable for damages, but not criminally responsible. (For example two people playing baseball and they accidentally break a neighbor's window. No crime has been committed, just damages, so they can't plead the 5th. Two people vandalize a house breaking all the windows. If taken to civil court, they could plead the 5th since it involved a potentially criminal act.)

EDIT: That said, unlike in a criminal trial, some civil courts allow holding the fact that you invoked the 5th amendment as evidence of liability.

When someone takes an immunity deal, they lose 5th amendment protections and thus can be compelled to testify, even if it causes them to testify against themselves in a civil case. This is what happened with Cosby. This is also how Cosby got off, because the prosecutor reneged on that immunity.

 

[I'm not a Robot]

Does anyone know if the civil case has gone through yet or not? I know this popped up today but the dates on what I saw seem older.

Lawsuit was filed on January 5th, 2022. Neither Ryan, nor Rooster Teeth have been served yet.

 

[Xarpho]

So, I did some digging, and it appears that Haywood does own his house (listed under his wife's name as primary) but he does it own it as a secondary name. It's surprisingly modest for Austin (less than $400k) and they have owned it since 2013.

Link to Travis CAD

While it is under the homestead exemption, it also means that most of his wealth isn't tied up with the house and probably has enough spare funds to cough up in a lawsuit, unless Warner Media will cover the bills.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

So, I did some digging, and it appears that Haywood does own his house (listed under his wife's name as primary) but he does it own it as a secondary name. It's surprisingly modest for Austin (less than $400k) and they have owned it since 2013.

Link to Travis CAD

While it is under the homestead exemption, it also means that most of his wealth isn't tied up with the house and probably has enough spare funds to cough up in a lawsuit, unless Warner Media will cover the bills.

Maybe they mysteriously sold their other cars and bought lambos recently. One exempt vehicle per licensed driver.

EDIT: Zillow also estimates current value at $689,500. That old <$400k value is probably the last time it was appraised.

 

[Pig Boss]

Spoiler: Plaintiff's Original Petition

View attachment 2904308 View attachment 2904309 View attachment 2904310 View attachment 2904311 View attachment 2904313 View attachment 2904314 View attachment 2904315 View attachment 2904317 View attachment 2904318 View attachment 2904319

Jane Doe alleges that she began exchanging messages with Ryan Haywood on Snapchat in July 2017. She was 16 at the time, and told him that she was attending a school for children with special needs. The conversations turned sexual and he offered to pay her $300 for sex. They met up in New York in December 2017 and the two had sex. It was painful and she cried.

It appears that "Jane Doe" is Julie Parkinson @PandaBear_Julie based on the similarities of their stories.

On page 2 it still lists his address as 3604 John Simpson Trail which is where he lived with Laurie. Would that mean that it's his most recent known address or definitely his current address? If it's his current address how the hell is he still affording to live there unless Laurie is there too?