Catazaro Declines NYCB Reinstatement; Ramasar to Rejoin

[Kathleen O'Connell]

13 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Maxwell isn't suing Ramasar.  Waterbury is.  The courts have already made it clear that even the egregious actions of Finlay alone do not constitute actionable revenge porn.  Waterbury has no standing to sue in Maxwell's behalf.   Despite her message to the contrary,  her legal complaint made it clear that she was outing Maxwell - we all knew who she was referring to.  Her actions are veering close to harassment.   Waterbury would be wise to let her case make its way through the courts and stop commenting on it on social media.

Perhaps I misunderstood your observation that Maxwell was the only victim. Did you mean the only person who might be deemed Ramasar’s victim?

I absolutely agree that keeping it off of social media would be best for all concerned. 

[On Pointe]

1 minute ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Perhaps I misunderstood your observation that Maxwell was the only victim. Did you mean the only person who might be deemed Ramasar’s victim?

Chase Finlay is the rightful target of Waterbury's wrath.  Maxwell is the only person with any standing to sue Ramasar and she has no intention to do so.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

1 hour ago, Leah said:

There is nothing wrong with contingency either.

I didn’t mean to imply that there was! There are plenty of examples where the public good has been well served by trial lawyers working on contingency.

My point was simply this: Waterbury’s primary interest may have been exposing what she believes was both individual and institutional wrongdoing, but her lawyer’s primary interest is likely not that. The tactics he may use to win a monetary award in court might not put her in the most favorable light outside of court. 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

17 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Maxwell is the only person with any standing to sue Ramasar and she has no intention to do so.

Honestly I don’t know the law well enough to know whether Waterbury has a case against Ramasar or not, and I certainly don’t know enough of the facts to make that call either. 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Just now, Leah said:

Sorry about that, I didn’t mean to misquote you. I misinterpreted your comment to mean that contingency was in itself a questionable motive and now I see your real point.

Oh I didn't think you misquoted me at all - I just assumed I hadn't been clear. 

[nanushka]

2 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Oh I didn't think you misquoted me at all - I just assumed I hadn't been clear. 

Yes thank for clarifying. I missed your point at first but now I see, and agree.

[cinnamonswirl]

Did anyone else catch Waterbury's Instagram story today in which she appeared to be offering to show Maxwell additional nude photos of herself (Maxwell) that Ramasar had sent? (To disprove Maxwell's statement that he only sent one photo of her). I found the idea of offering, on a public social media account, to show someone nude photos of themselves as a way of showing her that she too is a victim to be ... odd.

[JuliaJ]

Um, if Waterbury is implying that she has nude photos saved of Maxwell, doesn't that make her a hypocrite? Surely Maxwell's photos were never intended for Waterbury's eyes.

I had some sympathy for Waterbury in the beginning of this debacle because what her toxic egotistical male of an ex-boyfriend did to her, but now that the story has died down it seems like she just wants to keep the drama going for, yes, attention on social media. As someone said upthread, keeping Ramasar out of work does not benefit her whatsoever except to satisfy some vengeful piece of mind. I don't condone Ramasar's behavior but hasn't be already been held "accountable" by being suspended and then fired by NYCB, not to mention all of public shame? 

And I do think Maxwell is a victim -- of social-media mob harassment. It's nice to see all of the outpouring of support for her (and Ramasar) on Instagram from other company members. 

[On Pointe]

1 hour ago, Leah said:

Waterbury has the pictures because they are *ostensibly* evidence that Ramasar and Finlay were in some sort of joint scheme to trade explicit photos of their girlfriends. Waterbury has the right to the photos as they are evidence and should have come out in discovery regardless. That does not make her a hypocrite. If she threatened to expose the pictures publicly then she would be. I believe she was just referring to showing them to Maxwell. 

 

While trading photos of their girlfriends is distasteful,  vulgar,  and upsetting to the women involved when it was revealed,  what Finlay and Ramasar did is not a crime.  But by Waterbury trying to get Maxwell to bend to her will,  using a public platform to announce that she is in possession of nude photos of her,  (with the implied threat that they may come to light)  Waterbury may be close to committing a crime herself.   No doubt Maxwell  recorded conversations with Waterbury in order to protect herself.  It would be ironic if Waterbury is the one who gets charged with revenge porn.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

18 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

While trading photos of their girlfriends is distasteful,  vulgar,  and upsetting to the women involved when it was revealed,  what Finlay and Ramasar did is not a crime.

Terms like "distasteful" and "vulgar" suggest that sharing explicit photos of someone without their consent is mostly a violation of public mores regarding nudity and sex. "Upsetting to the women when it was revealed" suggests that it's only harmful when discovered. But it's more than that: it's a fundamental violation of privacy.  It's a violation of trust. It places the value of a man's ego above a woman's right to determine who sees her breasts (or her vulva or her buttocks or herself having sex), when, and in what context. 

That harm was done whether the women involved knew about it or not. 

[canbelto]

1 minute ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Terms like "distasteful" and "vulgar" suggest that sharing explicit photos of someone without their consent is mostly a violation of public mores regarding nudity and sex. "Upsetting to the women when it was revealed" suggests that it's only harmful when discovered. But it's more than that: it's a fundamental violation of privacy.  It's a violation of trust. It places the value of a man's ego above a woman's right to determine who sees her breasts (or her vulva or her buttocks or herself having sex), when, and in what context. 

That harm was done whether the women involved knew about it or not. 

Revenge porn is actually a crime now. Were Finlay's actions enough to qualify as revenge porn? Probably not but they were pretty close. So that's to stop the "it's not a crime' canard.

[BalanchineFan]

11 hours ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Did anyone else catch Waterbury's Instagram story today in which she appeared to be offering to show Maxwell additional nude photos of herself (Maxwell) that Ramasar had sent? (To disprove Maxwell's statement that he only sent one photo of her). I found the idea of offering, on a public social media account, to show someone nude photos of themselves as a way of showing her that she too is a victim to be ... odd.

I saw that particular Waterbury IG story and I felt so very uncomfortable and so incredibly supportive of Alexa Maxwell. Maxwell deserves respect and privacy. She deserves her own decisions to be heard and respected and to chart her own course. 

[On Pointe]

18 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Terms like "distasteful" and "vulgar" suggest that sharing explicit photos of someone without their consent is mostly a violation of public mores regarding nudity and sex. "Upsetting to the women when it was revealed" suggests that it's only harmful when discovered. But it's more than that: it's a fundamental violation of privacy.  It's a violation of trust. It places the value of a man's ego above a woman's right to determine who sees her breasts (or her vulva or her buttocks or herself having sex), when, and in what context. 

That harm was done whether the women involved knew about it or not. 

The question is was there a "violation of public mores"?  Finlay's defense attorney can argue that there was no public exposure of the photos,  no intent to expose them to the public,  and no intent to harm Waterbury.  People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

[canbelto]

1 minute ago, On Pointe said:

The question is was there a "violation of public mores"?  Finlay's defense attorney can argue that there was no public exposure of the photos,  no intent to expose them to the public,  and no intent to harm Waterbury.  People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

It's still a crime if you don't get caught when you do get caught. For instance there was a rape case where a woman recanted her testimony under pressure. Her pictures were later found in the house of a serial rapist who had been terrorizing Washington State. His rape of the woman who recanted her accusation was added to the prosecution and he is currently serving life in prison with no possibility of parole.

The whole thing was made into a Netflix series "Unbelievable."

It wa salso the subject of a Pulitzer Prize winning article.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

[Kathleen O'Connell]

19 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The question is was there a "violation of public mores"?  Finlay's defense attorney can argue that there was no public exposure of the photos,  no intent to expose them to the public,  and no intent to harm Waterbury.  People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "public mores." I meant general societal attitudes about nudity and sex—attitudes that determine whether something is deemed "vulgar"—and not whether the particular photos in question were released to the broader public. 

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Kathleen O'Connell

[Kathleen O'Connell]

14 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

Based on the texts between Finlay and his various interlocutors detailed in Waterbury's complaint I think we can safely say that plenty of people knew about them. The whole point at issue is shared photos, not photos no one knew about. The women may not have known about them, but plenty of men apparently did. 

[On Pointe]

33 minutes ago, canbelto said:

It's still a crime if you don't get caught when you do get caught. For instance there was a rape case where a woman recanted her testimony under pressure. Her pictures were later found in the house of a serial rapist who had been terrorizing Washington State. His rape of the woman who recanted her accusation was added to the prosecution and he is currently serving life in prison with no possibility of parole.

The whole thing was made into a Netflix series "Unbelievable."

It wa salso the subject of a Pulitzer Prize winning article.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

I think comparing the Waterbury situation to a rape case is apples-to-oranges reasoning.  Rape is unquestionably a violent crime.  I think that the conflation of what Waterbury is accusing Ramasar of doing with sexual abuse,  harassment and rape is the most dangerous aspect of the entire debacle.  I'd be willing to bet that most of the people demonstrating in front of the theatre don't know what Ramasar is actually accused of doing. The publisher of the theatre blog who has been whipping up opposition to Ramasar seems to realize that he has gone too far and is now trying to walk back the invective.  But considerable,  likely actionable,  damage has already been done.

Surely her lawyer  has warned Waterbury that showing Maxwell nude photos of herself,  with the intent to coerce action on her part,  could be considered harassment or even revenge porn.  As far as Maxwell is concerned,  Waterbury needs to let it go.

[yukionna4869]

15 minutes ago, Leah said:

So your logic is that showing Maxwell photos of herself is revenge porn, while sharing photos of Waterbury to multiple men without her consent constitutes no actual harm.

 

I think OnPointe was talking specifically about what Ramasar did. As far as I know, he did not share photos of Waterbury to multiple men. My understanding was that he asked Finlay to send photos, and Finlay complied with the request.

[yukionna4869]

1 minute ago, Leah said:

OnPointe specifically mentioned Finlay, not Ramasar. 

Gotcha. I thought you were responding to the post directly above yours.

[On Pointe]

29 minutes ago, Leah said:

So your logic is that showing Maxwell photos of herself is revenge porn, while sharing photos of Waterbury to multiple men without her consent constitutes no actual harm.

 

The defining aspect of revenge porn is intent.  "Several" men may have seen the photos of Waterbury.  (Catazaro and Longhitano didn't but she's suing them anyway.). All of us commenting here are aware of their purported existence,  but Finlay did not post them to the internet or threaten to do so.  He didn't want her to know about them at all.  Waterbury stupidly revealed her intent on her Instagram - she wants to coerce Maxwell into breaking up with Ramasar,  an incredible violation of Maxwell's privacy,  and she let the whole world know she has the photos.  How long before she succumbs to the temptation to show them to someone else?

[canbelto]

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

I think comparing the Waterbury situation to a rape case is apples-to-oranges reasoning.  Rape is unquestionably a violent crime.  I think that the conflation of what Waterbury is accusing Ramasar of doing with sexual abuse,  harassment and rape is the most dangerous aspect of the entire debacle.  I'd be willing to bet that most of the people demonstrating in front of the theatre don't know what Ramasar is actually accused of doing. The publisher of the theatre blog who has been whipping up opposition to Ramasar seems to realize that he has gone too far and is now trying to walk back the invective.  But considerable,  likely actionable,  damage has already been done.

Surely her lawyer  has warned Waterbury that showing Maxwell nude photos of herself,  with the intent to coerce action on her part,  could be considered harassment or even revenge porn.  As far as Maxwell is concerned,  Waterbury needs to let it go.

I'm not comparing Ramasar's case to the Unbelievable case. I'm saying that once someone has been charged prosecutors can bring in evidence from cases that were previously dropped due to lack of evidence. In this case, the serial rapist was charged with "Marie's" rape even though she recanted the evidence. So if there are more pictures out there circulating Finlay can be held accountable for them even if Waterbury doesn't know about it.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

As several others have noted "revenge porn" isn't a good descriptor for what Finlay et al were engaged in. A better term might be "Non-consensual Pornography" or "NCP. Here's how it's described in a brochure put out by the U. S. Airforce:

What is NCP?

Also known as revenge porn, cyber rape, in- voluntary porn, and nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. NCP is the distribution of explicit/intimate images of a person without his/her consent.

This includes:
(1) Images originally obtained without consent by using hidden cameras, hacking phones, or recording sexual assaults AND
(2) Images consensually obtained within the context of an intimate relationship.

What is distribution?

Distribution includes the posting of images to social media sites and sharing images directly with another person (e.g. via email).

The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative has model state and federal NCP legislation that doesn't require intent to cause harm. It's worth taking a look at their Guide for Legislators.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Kathleen O'Connell

[Helene]

32 minutes ago, Leah said:

NYPL 245.15 requires “intent to cause harm

 

32 minutes ago, Leah said:

ven if you don’t think that should count as harm, it is. 

Those are two separate things:  You can cause harm without intending harm.   (Example:  involuntary manslaughter, in the criminal world.) To prove intent, a lawyer and/or prosecutor would look for direct statements, coded statements, and patterns of behavior to show intent. From everything that has been published in court documents and main stream reporting, I don't see anything that shows they did it to harm anyone.  That they thought there was no harm involved is the issue. 

[GB1216]

17 minutes ago, Helene said:

 

Those are two separate things:  You can cause harm without intending harm.   (Example:  involuntary manslaughter, in the criminal world.) To prove intent, a lawyer and/or prosecutor would look for direct statements, coded statements, and patterns of behavior to show intent. From everything that has been published in court documents and main stream reporting, I don't see anything that shows they did it to harm anyone.  That they thought there was no harm involved is the issue. 

100% agree.  I would even go so far as to say they were willfully blind to what they were doing - still wrong, of course.  
 

I do have to say that I was surprised when Amar was cast in west side story.  I thought he would just continue his career quietly at NYCB since being reinstated.  

[GB1216]

3 minutes ago, Leah said:

I wasn’t conflating intent to harm and harm itself. Speaking about Finlay, not Ramasar. He shared the photos to several men including a pimp and compared Waterbury to a farm animal. I think there can be a string inference of an intent to degrade and embarrass Waterbury. 

“Willful” blindness, like “willful” disregard and extreme recklessness, can count as intent.

Yes exactly.