Jump to content
mille-feuille

Catazaro Declines NYCB Reinstatement; Ramasar to Rejoin

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Absolutely. The insinuations against Waterbury weren't necessary nor well-considered. They might be relevant in a court of law, but look ugly trotted out in the court of public opinion.

Respectfully, I disagree. Waterbury contacted Alexa Maxwell to try to persuade Maxwell to take actions that Maxwell did not want to do, and has not done in the two years of this mess. Waterbury is posting content about Maxwell today in her IG stories. Maxwell has a right to reveal whatever she wishes of their communication.  Maxwell sounds like a woman who is fed up with being harrassed.

I don't understand how Waterbury can claim that there has been "no accountability" when her civil case is still wending its way through the courts. Has her case been dismissed? Remember that the conclusion of a civil case is a monetary judgement. While Waterbury probably wants a lot of outcomes it's not an insinuation to say that she chose an avenue that ends with money. If she wants Finlay or Ramasar or the man who actually made the "farm animal" comment off the streets and out of work she should file criminal charges. I don't see how keeping him from work helps her, except in terms of generating publicity and revenge.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

At any rate Maxwell is the only party who might have been violated,  but she's not making a complaint.

If Maxwell was violated, so was Waterbury. Both women had explicit photos taken by a male sexual partner who then shared those photos with others without the women's consent. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, nanushka said:

Of course it’s only her word, but I’ve read many comments suggesting (critically) that Waterbury is in it for the money.

Waterbury may not be in it for the money, but her lawyer, who works on a contingency basis, surely is. 

Share this post


Link to post

(This is in response to the thread in general, not one particular person.)  Money is the main means in which justice is carried out in this country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting money from someone who has wronged you. This is the way American law works. If you don’t like it there are other places you can go. It’s because of this legal system that we enjoy the kind of freedoms and safety standards that are uncommon elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with contingency either. It ensures that those who are unable to normally afford a day in court can seek justice. (These are the people who are usually most harmed by those in power.) It further democratizes the legal system. 

That being said, Waterbury’s attorney doesn’t seem to be the most scrupulous person, and I wish she had gotten better representation. 

Edit: Just to be clear, civil cases for monetary relief are generally a lot easier to win than criminal cases, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very tough hill to climb, especially in sex-related cases where the issue usually comes down to a he said-she argument over consent. Civil actions will usually require a preponderance of the evidence. Thus criminal charges were likely not a viable option for Waterbury.

Edited by Leah

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Leah said:

(This is in response to the thread in general, not one particular person.)  Money is the main means in which justice is carried out in this country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting money from someone who has wronged you. This is the way American law works. If you don’t like it there are other places you can go. It’s because of this legal system that we enjoy the kind of freedoms and safety standards that are uncommon elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with contingency either. It ensures that those who are unable to normally afford a day in court can seek justice. (These are the people who are usually most harmed by those in power.) It further democratizes the legal system. 

... 

Edit: Just to be clear, civil cases for monetary relief are generally a lot easier to win than criminal cases, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very tough hill to climb, especially in sex-related cases where the issue usually comes down to a he said-she argument over consent. Civil actions will usually require a preponderance of the evidence. Thus criminal charges were likely not a viable option for Waterbury.

Thanks for this, @Leah.  Really appreciate the way you articulated this.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Waterbury may not be in it for the money, but her lawyer, who works on a contingency basis, surely is. 

Of course. He may not be highly skilled, but he’s a professional.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BalanchineFan said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Waterbury contacted Alexa Maxwell to try to persuade Maxwell to take actions that Maxwell did not want to do, and has not done in the two years of this mess. Waterbury is posting content about Maxwell today in her IG stories. Maxwell has a right to reveal whatever she wishes of their communication.  Maxwell sounds like a woman who is fed up with being harrassed.

I wasn't aware of Waterbury's most recent IG posts (or of any of them, for that matter, since I don't follow her). I agree that Maxwell is certainly within her rights to report the details of any conversations the two women have had. I just think it would have been the better part of valor to state that she'd forgiven Ramasar, that she doesn't view herself as a victim, and that so far as she's concerned, claims that he's a rapist are exaggerated and leave it at that. 

Edited by Kathleen O'Connell

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

If Maxwell was violated, so was Waterbury. Both women had explicit photos taken by a male sexual partner who then shared those photos with others without the women's consent. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Leah said:

Edit: Just to be clear, civil cases for monetary relief are generally a lot easier to win than criminal cases, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very tough hill to climb, especially in sex-related cases where the issue usually comes down to a he said-she argument over consent. Civil actions will usually require a preponderance of the evidence. Thus criminal charges were likely not a viable option for Waterbury.

 

According to Waterbury, the DA declined to prosecute.
"The District Attorney of NYC looked into my case, conducting a criminal investigation and similarly to how the DA handled the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, they’re claiming there’s not enough to prosecute the case with. They couldn’t “find” the photos and conversations that were taken and sent after the “revenge porn” law was signed in, in 2018 (although there were laws criminalizing this conduct which were passed in 2014 by Cuomo.) "

Waterbury's post below also includes some screenshots of Finlay's text exchanges. Content warning: the last image in the post contains some vile language, but those messages are not from Amar. One might get confused since the post is about Amar starting previews in West Side Story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:

 

According to Waterbury, the DA declined to prosecute.
"The District Attorney of NYC looked into my case, conducting a criminal investigation and similarly to how the DA handled the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, they’re claiming there’s not enough to prosecute the case with. They couldn’t “find” the photos and conversations that were taken and sent after the “revenge porn” law was signed in, in 2018 (although there were laws criminalizing this conduct which were passed in 2014 by Cuomo.) "

Waterbury's post below also includes some screenshots of Finlay's text exchanges. Content warning: the last image in the post contains some vile language, but those messages are not from Amar. One might get confused since the post is about Amar starting previews in West Side Story.

 

Waterbury is starting to sound unhinged.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:

 

According to Waterbury, the DA declined to prosecute.
"The District Attorney of NYC looked into my case, conducting a criminal investigation and similarly to how the DA handled the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, they’re claiming there’s not enough to prosecute the case with. They couldn’t “find” the photos and conversations that were taken and sent after the “revenge porn” law was signed in, in 2018 (although there were laws criminalizing this conduct which were passed in 2014 by Cuomo.) "

Waterbury's post below also includes some screenshots of Finlay's text exchanges. Content warning: the last image in the post contains some vile language, but those messages are not from Amar. One might get confused since the post is about Amar starting previews in West Side Story.

 

Ah, that’s interesting. I didn’t see that.  I had assumed Waterbury saved the incriminating texts and photos when she saw them - maybe she did and the DA wanted the originals? 

And yes, her handling of the situation on social media is unfortunate. The emotion is understandable but she is not doing her case any favors.

Edited by Leah

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Kathleen O'Connell said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Yes, Waterbury does not come off well on social media. She is still a victim who has a right to be angry at the men looking at her photos. Even if Ramasar only received them once, he still is purported to have asked Finlay for more. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe (and hope) that she was just stating that she was going to just show them to Maxwell, and was not threatening public exposure. In any case her lawyer needs to tell her to shut up and/or take away her phone.

Also, just to be clear- while something may not be a crime it can certainly still be a tort. I believe but am not certain that Waterbury is going for some kind of invasion of privacy type case. I don’t think she has a case against Catazaro, and it seems shaky re Ramasar but I (not knowing all the facts of course) think that she has a solid case against Finlay.

Another edit: People seem to be confused about the disposition of the criminal investigation. The DA declined to file charges because of a lack of specific evidence. THe prosecutors simply did not believe that they could gain a conviction of Finlay as they did not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That fact does not mean that what happened was not a crime. No court has ruled anything, and the prosecutor’s decision is not in any way binding, at least until the statute of limitations runs out. 

Edited by Leah

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...