Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Fairandlove

Member
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fairandlove

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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’.
  4. There is an Instagram account with some videos of Waterbury speaking about her case: https://www.instagram.com/waterburyarchive/
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Right so either Waterbury exaggerated this story or the lawsuit is erroneous. Or both.
  14. This is also unclear, in the complaint it said that the images were ‘exclusively shared with members of NYCB’ but then in an interview on ABC, Waterbury said they were shared with ‘at least 20 men’. So if 20 men received her photos and it happened exclusively within NYCB, how come only 3 men from NYCB were added to her lawsuit. There are still lots of inconsistencies in her story.
  15. She said on her Instagram story ‘these men are pedophiles’ During her speech at UC Berkley she said that Catazaro had sent and received her images. She led a protest against Ramasar holding signs saying he was a ‘sexual predator’ as well as a sigh saying ‘still not your farm animal’ even though Ramasar never said such a thing. She even failed to correct multiple inconsistencies in her public story on several occasions including when outlets referred to her as a New York City Ballet ballerina - which she was never. Her own lawyer even had to correct this on his own website.
  16. Luckily the judge determined that she had no grounds to sue him and threw it out. Catazaro wasn’t even being sued for anything message/image related. He was only being sued for negligence, but he had no duty towards her, which he didn’t. Catazaro and Ramasar have ample grounds to countersue Waterbury for defamation based on her public comments about them.
  17. Her photos were never shared on a website like MySpace so that comparison is not even justified. How would you justify Catazaro being added to the lawsuit who never even saw her photos? It was all pure PR and for shock value. Waterbury claimed so many women were affected and yet Ramasar’s girlfriend had to put out a public statement telling Waterbury to stop speaking on her behalf and that what she was saying did not match her own feelings.
  18. Actually women saying ‘believe all women’ is literally asking for the privilege of being held to a different standard as a sex, while not allowing men to have due process. All the parties in this case except for Finlay were Waterbury’s/her lawyers victims for a PR campaign. Let’s not forget Catazaro, Ramasar, Loghitano and SAB weren’t even added to the lawsuit until after the initial suit against Finlay/NYCB was filed.
  19. This is simply not true. A judge can ask the defendants to issue a public apology if they don’t believe any monetary harm was caused. It doesn’t always have to be a financial settlement with a civil case.
  20. Ok but it was you who said not all lawyers working on contingency are motivated by money. Furthermore if Merson was motivated otherwise he could have asked NYCB for an apology or a commitment to change of practices rather than.... money.
  21. I see a stark difference there to: “$200 Million Negligence Lawsuit Against City Of New York $500 Million Settlement with Michigan State University Currently Being Litigated $200 Million Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against United States One Of The Largest Construction Accident Settlements For 2018 In New York $100 Million Reserved For Sexual Assault Victims By NY Archdiocese $28 Million As Part of The“
  22. Money may not be the motivation of all contingency lawyers, but you only have to look at the homepage of her lawyers website to recognize his motivations. https://mersonlaw.com The judge rightly ruled that Waterbury was neither an employee of NYCB, nor was she a student of SAB during the time any of this occurred, which is still incorrectly reported by the media and widely misunderstood by the public.
×
×
  • Create New...