Fairandlove

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

 One has to wonder why these youngsters feel entitled to police the thoughts and private communications of adults.

Perhaps the answer is staring us in the face.

On 10/23/2020 at 5:10 PM, Helene said:

People do all kinds of passive-aggressive things to get back at people they won't/can't stand up to directly, too.

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 hours ago, Helene said:

If you add her suit to his counterclaims, it sounds like a lot of their relationship was fraught, and many of their actions could be viewed as escalating and/or retaliatory during their relationship.  People can be quite vengeful before they break up instead of walking when the other person crosses the line.

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.

1 hour ago, Helene said:His counterclaim describes behavior on his part that at best is a dysfunctional escalation and, at worst, is deliberately vengeful, since breaking up after what he describes as abhorrent behavior was not in his toolbox.

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/

1 hour ago, Helene said:

I'm not surprised by the timing of this, because I'm sure they were hoping that the entire suit would be dismissed.  I'm surprised they went low and made Finlay look bad himself as well as weak and described a lot of bad behavior among him and his friends, including a reference by Waterbury about their drug and alcohol use, which I thought was pretty odd.  

What really surprises me is that her social media posts weren't made public as soon as she filed the suit -- they're easy enough to make go viral -- which might have nipped the interviews and her public statements in the bud.  Even if private, it's hard to imagine that no one had screen scrapes, and that they weren't leaked, especially by friends of Ramasar, Longhitano, and Catazaro, who were feeling the heat while Finlay disappeared from sight.  I'm in no way trying to imply that they are fake: I believe they are as real as the chats in her lawsuit.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Helene said:

The counter claims in the suit would be Exhibit A in how everything they seemed to do was an attempt to cause the other emotional harm.

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

14 minutes ago, Helene said:

The only aspect of the case that the judge allowed to go forward  regarded images she claimed he took unknowingly and shared without her permission.   It really doesn't matter what other photos he had of her with her permission or forgiveness, or if she was the world's worst girlfriend ever: the question is whether the photos she found on his computer were taken without her knowledge and shared without her consent. It also doesn't matter if she broke into his computer every day of the week if he gave her his password that day.   This will be an interesting case if it goes to trial, as well as the press in the interim.

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I recall correctly, Waterbury asked for money damages specifically to cover the cost of therapy.) Merson's firm wouldn't take on the case merely to extract an apology in any event.

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. 

4 minutes ago, Helene said:

I think the suit's only chance to make a case against NYCB and possibly SAB was to go to discovery and ask for disciplinary records.  Without those or other internal information that showed preferential treatment for the men in the company, there's no way they could have established any case.

At least I now know that it wasn't sloppy/incomplete discovery.

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

22 minutes ago, Helene said:

Where was it published or spoken about publicly that discovery never happened?  I didn't keep up with all of the motions.  

Waterbury and Merson were clear that they were looking for a monetary settlement to compensate for damages to her life, both when they approached NYCB and when they filed a suit.  It's in the suit.  That doesn't mean it's the only reason she exposed her life by filing a suit, and it there's nothing contradictory about asking for compensation and having a broader cause.

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.

56 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

1) If they only received the photos and neither solicited them nor passed them on to others there may not be much that Waterbury can sue them for.

2) They may be "judgement-proof," i.e., even if Waterbury were to win her suit and the judge awarded her money damages, they might not have the financial wherewithal to pay. 

3) Friends, colleagues, and acquaintances might have creditably told Waterbury that they knew of men other than the named defendants who'd seen the pictures, but she might not have enough first-hand evidence to bring a claim against them.

Suing people is expensive; one must pick one's counterparties carefully.

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.

31 minutes ago, Helene said:

Neither the lawsuit or any statement I've seen from Waterbury claimed that all of the more than 20 men were at NYCB.  

 

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.

16 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I honestly don't think we can say either of these things without access to all of the evidence. The public documents represent only a fragment of the whole. 

Just to make sure I understand your point: what is Waterbury exaggerating?

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 minutes ago, FauxPas said:

Unless this pimp is a NYCB employee with a dicey side gig, then Waterbury's photos were shared outside the group chat circle which consisted of at least 20 people.  So I agree with Kathleen O'Connell above.

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

10 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

If I've parsed the complaint correctly, the photos were shared via a group text.

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.

Just now, canbelto said:

You can't sue someone for defamation if the accusations are true. She didn't say anything about them that wasn't true. Maybe their conduct didn't meet the bar for being sued in civil court but what she said about them was still true.

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. 

15 hours ago, canbelto said:

He was in the group chat. So he was part of it. His fault. 

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.

Just now, canbelto said:

And in case you guys haven't guessed, yes this is personal. Private photos of mine were distributed without my permission on myspace years ago. Complaints to the company did not work and I was too embarrassed to do anything else. It is sickening the amount of sympathy these men get while Alexandra Waterbury is branded with the scarlet A.

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.

6 hours ago, canbelto said:

I would add that all this sympathy for the defendants is exhibit A of white privilege. Somehow white males are always the victims.

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. 

1 hour ago, BalanchineFan said:

 Additionally, in the civil court system the only thing you can be awarded is money. The defendants can't undo the suffering they've caused. They can only pay money in recompense and acknowlegement. That's our American system of justice.

Don't blame a woman for using it.

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.

5 minutes ago, Helene said:

Part of what Ms. Hoey and her firm does is saving money for her clients.  You don't know what you've actually saved unless there is a judgement against your client, ie, you lost, because what is asked for may have no relationship to the final judgement amount.  

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.

3 minutes ago, Helene said:

https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Barbara-E-Hoey

Prettier language, but her goal and her firm's goal are to win cases, in her case, representing employers against employees.

Lawyers and law firms' goals are to make or save money for their clients, while making money for themselves.  The former can be true of lawyers in government and public-service, advocacy, or other not-for-profit organizations, rather than in the business of law.

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“

Just now, Helene said:

As opposed to other law firms?  As opposed to the firm and lawyer who represented NYCB  to determine potential liability when accusations were made against Peter Martins?

I’m not familiar, would you provide a link for a fair comparison?
 

25 minutes ago, Helene said:

That is one interpretation.  And money isn't even always the motive of lawyers who work on contingency.

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.