mister butafuco
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2020
Or fall back on his golfing/badminton/climbing talents? The world's his oyster.
Dr. Rachel McKinnon / Dr. Veronica Ivy / Rhys McKinnon / Rachel Veronica McKinnon / Foxy Moxy / SportIsARight - failed out of a tenured job,man who competes in womens sports, gained like 100 lbs in 2022 (page 813), comically fell off bike before a race (page 830)
- Thread starter sperginity
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
I've just seen the posts of him freaking out, and I searched the thread, but I'm still not sure what's happening here? Is he getting fired?
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2019
I dont know if this will get taken down at all but it is interesting at the moment.
McKinnon Annual ~Eval
McKinnon Annual ~Eval
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
It seems like he doesn't realize that his ultimate recourse if he really feels things have been handled badly, is to lawyer up and go to court.
Except he's left such an unprofessional, public paper trail that it would be shocking if he could even get an employment lawyer to take the case on contingency. He thinks this is going to be expensive for them? This is a rounding error for them, they already pay for legal services. He's going to have to pay a retainer if he wants anyone to take a case that's so obviously not going to work out in favor of the plaintiff.
Just the "fuck my boss" stuff alone should be plenty for them to initiate action against him based on the obligation that the faculty has to represent their university well.
Except he's left such an unprofessional, public paper trail that it would be shocking if he could even get an employment lawyer to take the case on contingency. He thinks this is going to be expensive for them? This is a rounding error for them, they already pay for legal services. He's going to have to pay a retainer if he wants anyone to take a case that's so obviously not going to work out in favor of the plaintiff.
Just the "fuck my boss" stuff alone should be plenty for them to initiate action against him based on the obligation that the faculty has to represent their university well.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
I'd be fascinated to learn about Rhys professional relationships with other SJW focused colleagues. He doesn't attend faculty meetings or participate in the governance of the college, which I would have thought would have been a great opportunity for him to grandstand, and get noticed.
I wonder if he's had negative interactions with some other progressive colleagues, perhaps he misjudged his own place on the pyramid of oppression, and said the wrong thing to the wrong person at some point.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
Rhys is my favourite by a mile. Only greta and Nina in their heyday have made me laugh more.
The current situation seems like he is trying to bluff them into firing him, but he has neither been fired nor quit pending further developments.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
We already know he copies his department colleagues on all the hate email he receives. I'm sure there is no love lost there. I'd be willing to bet that Rhys has zero friendly relationships with any other staff at the college. I'm sure they are professional and treat him cordially, but actually liking or respecting him? I can't imagine that there are any who do. Especially if he shirks his responsibilities and makes them do all the work. Nobody likes a slacker.
- Joined
- May 26, 2020
He doesn't care about that, because whilst he loves to show off, if he attended he'd have to at least put bare minimum work in and Rhys wanted a sinecure, not an actual "work for your wage" job.
He can bluster and bullshit his way through his courses (and the students still called him out) but the other stuff that CoC ask of him, that doesn't rely on him regurgitating his specific troonsportsarama agenda, he'd have to actually work at.
Obviously, he thought his troonshield was going to let him skate on things but apparently not.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
I don't think the doc will go anywhere near a court with this. The doc knows that there is sooooo much documented shit posting, sexism, racism etc collected by kiwis, mumsnet, butterfly wheels and plenty more that going to court would be so fucking dumb. Even the doc is not that dumb.
I think he will make a fuck load of noise and go crazy on twitter to his small circle of fans but there aren't going to be any marches, or protests. If the doc wasn't so lazy i could imagine a more likely scenario would be the purchase of some guns and a shooting spree followed by suicide.
God..... can you fucking imagine how long the suicide note would be with all the bullet points, or some kind of reeeeaaaaallllyyy long pre-shooting video of me, me , me , blah-blah, look what you made me do, blah-blah and now i am a professional mass shooter blah.
I think he will make a fuck load of noise and go crazy on twitter to his small circle of fans but there aren't going to be any marches, or protests. If the doc wasn't so lazy i could imagine a more likely scenario would be the purchase of some guns and a shooting spree followed by suicide.
God..... can you fucking imagine how long the suicide note would be with all the bullet points, or some kind of reeeeaaaaallllyyy long pre-shooting video of me, me , me , blah-blah, look what you made me do, blah-blah and now i am a professional mass shooter blah.
- Joined
- May 26, 2020
"847th - I was not immediately thrown to the floor and vigorously sexed on by any of the male staff or students, a clear case of transphobia!"
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2018
I copy and pasted the text, there are some formatting problems but they are mostly just spaces being deleted for some reason. Thanks for adding to the thread.
DearVeronica,
I have attached the summary sheet for your annual faculty evaluation for 2019.In what follows, I discuss your performance in each of the three areas of evaluation:teaching, research,and service.Because you had FMLA leave for most of Spring 2019, and alternative duties limited to research and service for the remaining weeks of that semester, this evaluation willcover teaching only in Fall 2019, and will recognize the reduced expectations for research andservice in Spring 2019.
Teaching–Good /VeryGood
You taught two sections of PHIL 101 (Introduction to Philosophy) in Fall 2019.Yourversion of this courseis explicitly described as covering metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics,although it seems more accurate to describe it as situated, as your research has been, at the intersection of epistemology and ethics. There is a loose sense in which any theory in epistemology or ethics is also metaphysical, in making claims about what is real, but the course cannot be said to have a separate unit on metaphysics as a discrete area of philosophy. Thereadings are nearly all contemporary, withan emphasis on issues of racial and gender oppression, and very little representation of a diversity of political perspectives. An interesting exception is the focus, drawn from Paul’s main example, on the question of whether it is rational to have a children, an issue that could be broadened beyond Paul’s specific epistemologicalquestion toinclude other sorts of readings with different perspectives, if you so chose.The advantages of this sort of approach to PHIL 101 are gains in the focus and coherenceof the course. The disadvantages are losses in historical and disciplinary breadth. Yourcourse has plenty for the students to think about, but it is less clear that it prepares students as well forsubsequent courses in the major. Given that this class serves both a pre-major and an alwayslarger gen ed audience, however, this is a trade off that all of us have to face.Your assessments consisted of three multiple-choice testsand four brief “mindfulness”papers–one two-page paper and three one-page papers, which primarily aim at getting thestudents to reflect on and coherently express their own beliefs.While that aim isimportant, it remainstrue that compared with other courses in our program, these assignments
are at the very low end for the amount and depth of writing required, and especially for the sortof writing that forms the bulk of philosophical work, which is carefully and responsiblyexplaining and then critically evaluating the arguments of others. While your assignmentsmaybe able tocover the material–well-designed multiple-choice tests can certainly serve usefulpurposes–you are doing a rather minimal job in teaching writing andinpreparing students forfuture work in philosophy.The studentresponsesfor these courses were quite solid, with nearly all positive comments and quite good numerical scores. They were not exceptional or exemplary by thestandards of our program, but I did not see much to worry about in them, either.Some of the issues that have been identified in past evaluations–openness to different political perspective and concerns about feedback–were there but in notably more muted form. You did not providea narrative explanation for any changes you made to influence these effects, but you might wantto do so in the future, to get full credit forany modifications that improved your teaching in these respects. Research–Very Good You published three main essays in 2019. Two were essays invited for edited volumes(“Luck and Norms” and “Gaslighting as Epistemic Violence”), and the third was a peer-reviewed essay on trans women’s participation in sports, for theAPA Newsletter on LGBTQ Issues in Philosophy. You also published a large number of pieces of public philosophy on the latter and related issues in various media outlets. You also have several forthcoming publications, alongwith your ongoing work on the book that you have proposed for your sabbatical project. There ions question that you have an ongoing research program that is producing, and seems likely tocontinue to produce, an impressive number of publications.When it comes to quality as opposed to quantity, however, the picture is more mixed. Asyou know,one reasonI requested this annual evaluation is that the focus of your research hasshifted from issues in epistemology and pragmatic philosophy of language to a particular area of applied ethics, the participation of transgender and intersex athletes in women’ssports. In the comments you sent me with your annual evaluation, you rejected this characterization, citing the two papers for the edited volumes published in 2019. Having read those two papers, I am actually more convinced that the characterization is accurate. The “Luck and Norms” paper ishighly derivative of the two earlier essays you published on luck, in 2013 and 2014. I don’t think this is in any way bad in itself: you should certainly follow up on and receive all the attention you deserve for the earlier work. But I did not see that the 2019 essay added much substantivelyto the earlier essays. As for the 2019 gaslighting essay, what it mainly adds to your earlier essay on gaslighting is the long narrative case study drawn from your newer work, and specifically from your own experience as a transgender woman cyclist. There are connections between your previous and your current work, and it is certainly possible that you will pick up strands of the earlier work and extend it in newdirections. But for now it is quite accurate to say that you are mainly working in applied ethics,on the specificquestion of transgenderand intersex athletes in women’s sports. The APA Newsletter essay wasclearly your most important publication for 2019. It was the only peer-reviewed article, thepublication most connected to your book project andtoyour most prominent pieces of publicphilosophy, and thus the one most likely to lead to future work, on which future judgments ofquality will be made. The luck essay was of solid enough quality, but given its relation to theearlier work, nothing special either. The new gaslighting essay was, in my own judgment, ofrather questionable scholarly quality, resting far too heavily on one first-person account that iseasily open to dispute.The main scholarly and public philosophical contribution you are nowmaking is your argument that transgenderwomen should, as women,undisputedlybe allowed toparticipate in women’s sports.There is no doubt that this argument should allow you to have a continuingrole in publicdebates. For the formative purposes of this evaluation, however, we need to evaluate thecontribution the argument can make to the scholarly literature on the ethics of sports. As youknow, our departmental guidelines say that contributionsto public philosophy can count asresearch and not just service to the community only if the faculty member makes aconvincing case and proposes convincing standards for the evaluation of the quality of the work.The position you are taking makes a distinctive contribution to the literature on the ethics of sports precisely because it seems to challenge the view that the normative basis for thedistinction between men’s and women’s sports rests on the physiological differences betweenmen’s and women’s biology. For your opponents, this supposed normative standard should exclude transgenderwomen from competition in women’s sports, unless they meet somephysiological standards, specified in some way. You challenge this argument in many ways, butyou also have thus far evaded what might seem like the theoretically most important question:what is the normative basis for the distinction between men’s and women’s sports? You arguethatthe distinction simply exists as a practice, and thus should be governed by the same legal andhuman rights standards that should govern all our practices. And you argue that the supposed normative basis is not the historically or empirically trueone, that women’s sports were in factinvented to keep women in a subordinate position. But none of this challenges your opponents’conviction that the above standard should Bethe normative basis for what they understand as the justified distinction betweenmen’s and women’s sports. None of it takes up the question of whether you think there is any normative justification for, and thus should be, adistinctionbetween men’s and women’s sports. Maybe you don’t have to have an answer of your own tothis question, but then you need a compelling answer to the question of why you don’t have to answer it.I go into this level of detail because I think that the way you address this particularquestion is likely to be the decisive factor in assessing the quality(andnot just the quantity,which is thus far beyond question)of your new line of work. If you have a theoretically compelling response, then I think you are likely to be judged as having made an importantcontribution to this area of applied ethics. If you simply evade the question, then I think you arelikely to be judged as doing less than philosophicallysuccessful work. Given your current trajectory, this question is likely to be at the heart of the evaluation of your research if and whenyou apply for promotion toProfessor
Service–Unsatisfactory
You did a great deal of service to the wider community in 2019, through your publicphilosophy essays and your media interviews. In many ways, the media attention you havereceived is as a cyclist and not as a professor, butyou are in a position to use your platform as a transgender woman cyclist to draw attention to your scholarly work.But you also received media attention in 2019 forremarks that forced President Hsu to remind the public that the College “expects its faculty members to make every effort toexerciseappropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others when engaging them onchallenging issues.” Failing to meet this standard will undermine the service contributions ofyour public philosophy work.Your service to the College wasmore modest, consisting of work reviewing student funding proposals for the Women’s and Gender Studies Program and on the undergraduate research committee.Kris de Welde reported that you reviewedyour assigned WGST proposals.However, Beth Meyer-Bernstein reported that you did not fulfillclose to all of your assigned responsibilities on the URCA committee. When completed, this kind of work is adequate tocontribute something to campus-wide service,but will fall short of the leadership contribution that is part of the standard for promotion toProfessor in service.You did complete the small service projects assigned to you during your alternative duties in the spring of 2019.Beyond that, though,your service to the department this year wasnon-existent. You did not volunteer to assist with anything, and you failed to do even theminimal things that your serviceexpectations letter reminded you that every department memberis expected to do (and not receive any special credit for). You did not attend a single departmentmeeting or event, either in person or by Skype, and so absented yourself from every departmental deliberation and activity. Though you have disability accommodations from theEEO office, those accommodations say, “It is essential that all faculty attend departmentmeetings and participate in the governance of the program.”At this point, you are simply not meeting your basic obligations as a citizen of the department
I have attached the summary sheet for your annual faculty evaluation for 2019.In what follows, I discuss your performance in each of the three areas of evaluation:teaching, research,and service.Because you had FMLA leave for most of Spring 2019, and alternative duties limited to research and service for the remaining weeks of that semester, this evaluation willcover teaching only in Fall 2019, and will recognize the reduced expectations for research andservice in Spring 2019.
Teaching–Good /VeryGood
You taught two sections of PHIL 101 (Introduction to Philosophy) in Fall 2019.Yourversion of this courseis explicitly described as covering metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics,although it seems more accurate to describe it as situated, as your research has been, at the intersection of epistemology and ethics. There is a loose sense in which any theory in epistemology or ethics is also metaphysical, in making claims about what is real, but the course cannot be said to have a separate unit on metaphysics as a discrete area of philosophy. Thereadings are nearly all contemporary, withan emphasis on issues of racial and gender oppression, and very little representation of a diversity of political perspectives. An interesting exception is the focus, drawn from Paul’s main example, on the question of whether it is rational to have a children, an issue that could be broadened beyond Paul’s specific epistemologicalquestion toinclude other sorts of readings with different perspectives, if you so chose.The advantages of this sort of approach to PHIL 101 are gains in the focus and coherenceof the course. The disadvantages are losses in historical and disciplinary breadth. Yourcourse has plenty for the students to think about, but it is less clear that it prepares students as well forsubsequent courses in the major. Given that this class serves both a pre-major and an alwayslarger gen ed audience, however, this is a trade off that all of us have to face.Your assessments consisted of three multiple-choice testsand four brief “mindfulness”papers–one two-page paper and three one-page papers, which primarily aim at getting thestudents to reflect on and coherently express their own beliefs.While that aim isimportant, it remainstrue that compared with other courses in our program, these assignments
are at the very low end for the amount and depth of writing required, and especially for the sortof writing that forms the bulk of philosophical work, which is carefully and responsiblyexplaining and then critically evaluating the arguments of others. While your assignmentsmaybe able tocover the material–well-designed multiple-choice tests can certainly serve usefulpurposes–you are doing a rather minimal job in teaching writing andinpreparing students forfuture work in philosophy.The studentresponsesfor these courses were quite solid, with nearly all positive comments and quite good numerical scores. They were not exceptional or exemplary by thestandards of our program, but I did not see much to worry about in them, either.Some of the issues that have been identified in past evaluations–openness to different political perspective and concerns about feedback–were there but in notably more muted form. You did not providea narrative explanation for any changes you made to influence these effects, but you might wantto do so in the future, to get full credit forany modifications that improved your teaching in these respects. Research–Very Good You published three main essays in 2019. Two were essays invited for edited volumes(“Luck and Norms” and “Gaslighting as Epistemic Violence”), and the third was a peer-reviewed essay on trans women’s participation in sports, for theAPA Newsletter on LGBTQ Issues in Philosophy. You also published a large number of pieces of public philosophy on the latter and related issues in various media outlets. You also have several forthcoming publications, alongwith your ongoing work on the book that you have proposed for your sabbatical project. There ions question that you have an ongoing research program that is producing, and seems likely tocontinue to produce, an impressive number of publications.When it comes to quality as opposed to quantity, however, the picture is more mixed. Asyou know,one reasonI requested this annual evaluation is that the focus of your research hasshifted from issues in epistemology and pragmatic philosophy of language to a particular area of applied ethics, the participation of transgender and intersex athletes in women’ssports. In the comments you sent me with your annual evaluation, you rejected this characterization, citing the two papers for the edited volumes published in 2019. Having read those two papers, I am actually more convinced that the characterization is accurate. The “Luck and Norms” paper ishighly derivative of the two earlier essays you published on luck, in 2013 and 2014. I don’t think this is in any way bad in itself: you should certainly follow up on and receive all the attention you deserve for the earlier work. But I did not see that the 2019 essay added much substantivelyto the earlier essays. As for the 2019 gaslighting essay, what it mainly adds to your earlier essay on gaslighting is the long narrative case study drawn from your newer work, and specifically from your own experience as a transgender woman cyclist. There are connections between your previous and your current work, and it is certainly possible that you will pick up strands of the earlier work and extend it in newdirections. But for now it is quite accurate to say that you are mainly working in applied ethics,on the specificquestion of transgenderand intersex athletes in women’s sports. The APA Newsletter essay wasclearly your most important publication for 2019. It was the only peer-reviewed article, thepublication most connected to your book project andtoyour most prominent pieces of publicphilosophy, and thus the one most likely to lead to future work, on which future judgments ofquality will be made. The luck essay was of solid enough quality, but given its relation to theearlier work, nothing special either. The new gaslighting essay was, in my own judgment, ofrather questionable scholarly quality, resting far too heavily on one first-person account that iseasily open to dispute.The main scholarly and public philosophical contribution you are nowmaking is your argument that transgenderwomen should, as women,undisputedlybe allowed toparticipate in women’s sports.There is no doubt that this argument should allow you to have a continuingrole in publicdebates. For the formative purposes of this evaluation, however, we need to evaluate thecontribution the argument can make to the scholarly literature on the ethics of sports. As youknow, our departmental guidelines say that contributionsto public philosophy can count asresearch and not just service to the community only if the faculty member makes aconvincing case and proposes convincing standards for the evaluation of the quality of the work.The position you are taking makes a distinctive contribution to the literature on the ethics of sports precisely because it seems to challenge the view that the normative basis for thedistinction between men’s and women’s sports rests on the physiological differences betweenmen’s and women’s biology. For your opponents, this supposed normative standard should exclude transgenderwomen from competition in women’s sports, unless they meet somephysiological standards, specified in some way. You challenge this argument in many ways, butyou also have thus far evaded what might seem like the theoretically most important question:what is the normative basis for the distinction between men’s and women’s sports? You arguethatthe distinction simply exists as a practice, and thus should be governed by the same legal andhuman rights standards that should govern all our practices. And you argue that the supposed normative basis is not the historically or empirically trueone, that women’s sports were in factinvented to keep women in a subordinate position. But none of this challenges your opponents’conviction that the above standard should Bethe normative basis for what they understand as the justified distinction betweenmen’s and women’s sports. None of it takes up the question of whether you think there is any normative justification for, and thus should be, adistinctionbetween men’s and women’s sports. Maybe you don’t have to have an answer of your own tothis question, but then you need a compelling answer to the question of why you don’t have to answer it.I go into this level of detail because I think that the way you address this particularquestion is likely to be the decisive factor in assessing the quality(andnot just the quantity,which is thus far beyond question)of your new line of work. If you have a theoretically compelling response, then I think you are likely to be judged as having made an importantcontribution to this area of applied ethics. If you simply evade the question, then I think you arelikely to be judged as doing less than philosophicallysuccessful work. Given your current trajectory, this question is likely to be at the heart of the evaluation of your research if and whenyou apply for promotion toProfessor
Service–Unsatisfactory
You did a great deal of service to the wider community in 2019, through your publicphilosophy essays and your media interviews. In many ways, the media attention you havereceived is as a cyclist and not as a professor, butyou are in a position to use your platform as a transgender woman cyclist to draw attention to your scholarly work.But you also received media attention in 2019 forremarks that forced President Hsu to remind the public that the College “expects its faculty members to make every effort toexerciseappropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others when engaging them onchallenging issues.” Failing to meet this standard will undermine the service contributions ofyour public philosophy work.Your service to the College wasmore modest, consisting of work reviewing student funding proposals for the Women’s and Gender Studies Program and on the undergraduate research committee.Kris de Welde reported that you reviewedyour assigned WGST proposals.However, Beth Meyer-Bernstein reported that you did not fulfillclose to all of your assigned responsibilities on the URCA committee. When completed, this kind of work is adequate tocontribute something to campus-wide service,but will fall short of the leadership contribution that is part of the standard for promotion toProfessor in service.You did complete the small service projects assigned to you during your alternative duties in the spring of 2019.Beyond that, though,your service to the department this year wasnon-existent. You did not volunteer to assist with anything, and you failed to do even theminimal things that your serviceexpectations letter reminded you that every department memberis expected to do (and not receive any special credit for). You did not attend a single departmentmeeting or event, either in person or by Skype, and so absented yourself from every departmental deliberation and activity. Though you have disability accommodations from theEEO office, those accommodations say, “It is essential that all faculty attend departmentmeetings and participate in the governance of the program.”At this point, you are simply not meeting your basic obligations as a citizen of the department
sounds like he didn't contribute a lot and didn't show up to work.
I'm pumped for the "mic drop". Narcissistic people who do such things are always unintentionally revealing, we are gonna get a lot of details that rhys would otherwise keep to himself.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
It seems there's a mortgage. Starting with the links @Potatis Salad found:
1. 721 ARNO DR
2. 719 Arno Dr.
3. 616 Rainey Dr.
4. 717 Arno Dr.
You can take the "deed book and page" info to look up more info on https://search.berkeleydeeds.com
Doing the first one of these, I found these two transactions (PDFs attached):
So in the first one, Gerhard Jung sells 721 Arno Drive to Friendly Fox LLC for $108K in cash.
But in the second one, we see that Friendly Fox LLC has a mortgage on this property, from the selfsame Gerhard Jung, for $100K.
EDIT: attached all the documents. See my post below for the complete breakdown.
Also notice from the second document that Rhys is the sole member of Friendly Fox LLC. So if he does have a sugar daddy involved, it's strictly cash on the barrelhead. For $40K it could very well be that he just saved his pennies while working as a professor the past 6 years, and dumped it all into this, I suppose.
All this prompts the question: if Rhys has no job prospects anymore and despises America, why the hell is he doing this?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2019
He's locked his Twitter again and is claiming that some or all of the Facebook posts are fake.
We should keep in mind that the Facebook screencaps which have been posted on KF have not actually been verified at this point. Rhys did claim in a FB screencap to have bought four properties, which we later verified through property records. And the content in the screencaps certainly sounds like Rhys. But maybe we should take the "epic mic drop" screencap with a grain of salt?
Also, Friendly Fox Housing is a shell corp owned by another shell corp, Foxy Holdings LLC. There's still potential for funding to have flowed from someone else (a sugar daddy) through Foxy Holdings. However, I personally do not think it is outlandish/impossible for Rhys to have saved or come into $40k.
With a $400k mortgage, Foxy Holdings' monthly payment is likely in the neighborhood of $1800. He can probably comfortably recoup that in rent on the trailers, $450 per month apiece would cover it. Obviously there are a shit ton of other costs and considerations a landlord must consider, but rent vs. mortgage payments is the most basic.
We should keep in mind that the Facebook screencaps which have been posted on KF have not actually been verified at this point. Rhys did claim in a FB screencap to have bought four properties, which we later verified through property records. And the content in the screencaps certainly sounds like Rhys. But maybe we should take the "epic mic drop" screencap with a grain of salt?
Am I blind, where are you seeing the sole member info?
Also, Friendly Fox Housing is a shell corp owned by another shell corp, Foxy Holdings LLC. There's still potential for funding to have flowed from someone else (a sugar daddy) through Foxy Holdings. However, I personally do not think it is outlandish/impossible for Rhys to have saved or come into $40k.
With a $400k mortgage, Foxy Holdings' monthly payment is likely in the neighborhood of $1800. He can probably comfortably recoup that in rent on the trailers, $450 per month apiece would cover it. Obviously there are a shit ton of other costs and considerations a landlord must consider, but rent vs. mortgage payments is the most basic.
He closed on the four trailers in March. His CoC evaluation wasn't released until May. Maybe he didn't realize anything was wrong at CoC until he got the eval?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2018
Now we know why he's just bought a whole bunch of them... it's for himself!
Wonder if those papers have been signed, though.
I think the property purchases are a Rhys & Danny (platonic lifemate/sugar daddy) co-production. They live in a filthy shitbox condo that hasn’t been renovated in 20 years; they’re obviously not sinking their money into their home.
Danny is nearly 50, not yet near retirement but at an age when maybe you’ve got money to invest so perhaps he decided to secure some side income with rental properties. We already know Rhys’s salary and have established that his speaker fees and promotional deals (lol remember the watches?) are just more bullshit; unless the bank of Mum & Dad handed over some cash, I think it’s Danny who’s bankrolling this operation.
It’s a weird time for Rhys to make such an investment. Maybe he believes he’s going to cash in on a huge severance?
ETA posted before I saw @Kosher Dill’s info on the mortgages
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
Yikes!
Rhys is a LANDLORD? I wonder if he realises his new best friends aren't too fond of landlords.
When they eventually come to put a bullet in him it'll be like Buridan's Woke Ass - "He's transgender! But he's a fucking landlord! Yes, but he's transgender!"
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
All right, I went ahead and did the rest of the properties.
Looks like Rhys paid $32K out-of-pocket and has $360K of mortgage debt. I'll edit the rest of the documents into my original post.
EDIT:
That makes sense, it would explain why he had that "renovation" LLC. Maybe this is just a harebrained get-rich-quick scheme, which fits everything we know of the good doctor. He'll make it work because he's just so much smarter than everyone else who had this idea!
| Property | Selling Price | Mortgage |
|---|---|---|
| 721 Arno Dr | $108000 | $100000 |
| 717 Arno Dr | $78400 | $70400 |
| 616 Rainey Dr | $97600 | $89600 |
| 719 Arno Dr | $108800 | $100800 |
| TOTAL | $392800 | $360800 |
Looks like Rhys paid $32K out-of-pocket and has $360K of mortgage debt. I'll edit the rest of the documents into my original post.
EDIT:
That makes sense, it would explain why he had that "renovation" LLC. Maybe this is just a harebrained get-rich-quick scheme, which fits everything we know of the good doctor. He'll make it work because he's just so much smarter than everyone else who had this idea!
Last edited: