Fairandlove

Perhaps the answer is staring us in the face.

You said: ‘His counterclaim describes behavior on his part that at best is a dysfunctional escalation and, at worst, is deliberately vengeful’ That’s your interpretation, but by no means a binary choice or a definitive conclusion. The answer could also be neither. I personally don’t see his behavior as being either an escalation OR deliberately vengeful.

Totally disagree with this because if you look at her claims, in his text to another person he referred to her as ‘a super hot model’. Also people do all sorts of things in relationships without meaning to be vengeful ie: sharing secrets with friends or even having an affair. I just don’t see vengeance in any of it except on her end.

Which part are you claiming to be deliberately vengeful? If you’re saying that filing counterclaims is vengeful, perhaps you don’t believe in the right to defend oneself from allegations. If you’re saying the images shared were somehow vengeful this is also incorrect as the timelines clearly show they were together when it occurred and did not happen afterwards as any type of ‘revenge’.

There is an Instagram account with some videos of Waterbury speaking about her case: https://www.instagram.com/waterburyarchive/

Perhaps being in an altered state of mind shows the lack of intent which Waterbury needs to prove? Just a thought. I’m surprised the Social media posts weren’t more widely shared also, although perhaps the guys were advised to keep a low profile since any rebuttals were considered ‘victim shaming’ regardless of what the facts may be.

444. On May 25, 2018, without permission or authority, Plaintiff returned to and entered Mr. Finlay's apartment. 445. Plaintifftexted Mr. Finlay and demanded that he turn over contact information of his married friend referred to above. She demanded money from both of them. Her demand increased to a payment of $20,000. 446. Both men asked that she not involve the married man or advise his wife of the sharingofanyphotographs. ThemarriedmantextedPlaintiffthathewouldlosehisjob,hiswife and his school status. 447. Plaintifftexted Mr. Finlay later that day, "I'm sure city ballet would looooooove this." (Emphasis supplied.) 448. The men agreed to pay her $20,000 but Plaintiff ultimately abandoned her demand under the belief that she could obtain even more money. 449. Plaintiff subsequently implied to at least one dancer that Mr. Finlay's family should pay her because she believed they were "pretty well off," owned "five houses," and that "these types of cases" were worth "$200,000" and that if the dancer filed a lawsuit she "would win a lot" of money because the NYCB had insurance companies that would pay her and the NYCB was worth a half billion dollars. YIKES

The only thing the case rests on now is whether Waterbury and her lawyers can prove that his intent was to cause her emotional or financial harm by sharing her image.

Ok, so it takes 4 people and 2 institutions to cover to cost of.... therapy? Anyway the judge has ruled and quite correctly in my opinion.

Exactly just a sloppy lawsuit with non-starter causes of action.

The parties that were dismissed obviously won’t go to discovery since the dismissal occurs prior to discovery. The judge also ruled that she failed to articulate any measurable damages in at least one of the claims dismissed.

1) If that’s the case then there was no reason to sue Catazaro since he didn’t send or receive her images. 2) That would show that this case was brought for financial gain and not on the principle of holding all accountable. 3) Speaking hearsay on national media could be problematic if it had gone to discovery and could discredit her cause. Finally its not expensive to sue if your lawyer works on contingency, which Merson does.

The lawsuit claims that it happened exclusively between men at NYCB (Line 104 of the complaint) Here Waterbury says 9 men: Somewhere else she said 20, I’m trying to locate that.

I said either Waterbury exaggerated or the lawsuit was erroneous. There seems to be a discrepancy between the number of people Waterbury claims to have seen her images and the number of people who were sued (Catazaro also never received her images) so really only two persons who were sued allegedly received her photo, what about the others she mentioned? If her goal was to hold men accountable for viewing her images, why did some of them get sued whilst others got away with no consequence? It doesn’t add up.

Right so either Waterbury exaggerated this story or the lawsuit is erroneous. Or both.