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

Catazaro Declines NYCB Reinstatement; Ramasar to Rejoin


Recommended Posts

16 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.

I don't believe that Finlay showed photos of Waterbury to a "pimp".  I just don't.

Link to post
23 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.

It was the donor, Longhitano, who made that comparison, and he was not referring to Waterbury. Longhitano did not see any photos, according to his lawyer.

Link to post
14 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.

Indeed. Alexandra knows best for Alexa, it would appear. It seems to me Waterbury's lawyer should put a lid on this, but maybe there's some upside for her that's not clear to me.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Leah said:

I stand corrected then. Goes to show how sloppy of a lawyer Merson is if he just included that detail without checking it. How amended of a complaint was it?

I consider it a substantial amendment. Ramasar, Catazaro and Longhitano were not among the defendants in the original complaint, although texts involving them were included. The most significant changes include more quotes of the different text conversations, and adding claims of negligence against those three men.

You can read the complaint as well as the responses here:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=rPLVUnskYCM89NLHno7z4g==&display=all&courtType=New York County Supreme Court&resultsPageNum=1

Edited by yukionna4869
Link to post

Willful disregard of his girlfriend's feelings, and how the damage would be to their relationship, but I'm not sure that would mean much in a criminal case.  In a civil case, it might mean something very different.

Link to post
14 minutes ago, Leah said:

I’m not sure what you mean. It shows (1) there was no consent, (2) he knew there was no consent, (3) he knew it would cause substantial embarrassment, and (4) he did not care. Why do you think that this is not intent to harm? 

The issue raised is that he had intent to harm, and the posited to prove his intent is "willful blindness."  There is no doubt that the text discussions in the court document show plenty of lack of consent, from the senders and the askers.   Indeed, the photos caused substantial embarrassment for Waterbury when she learned about them, and at least one photo caused substantial enough feelings in Maxwell that she accepted an apology for the behavior, rather than saying that no apology was called for, but none of the men expected any of the women from whom they were deliberately hiding the sharing to ever learn about it. 

I'm not arguing that what any of them did wasn't harmful or that they cared at all after doing the pleasure:harm, self:others cost-benefit analysis.  I'm not arguing that just because the women did not know, no harm was caused.  I just don't see how this rises to criminal intent, which is what you need to prove, at least in theory, for a criminal charge of revenge porn.  Had one of the texts stated that she wouldn't ever find out , but she deserved having her photos sent, to get back at her for something, that would be a different story.

Link to post
47 minutes ago, Leah said:

Looking at the amended complaint now. All three men are alleged to have shared photos. I had thought Catazaro was just an innocent receiver of a photo from Finlay. 
And Finlay admits in the texts that he knows Waterbury would be “pissed” if she knew about what he was doing. There’s your willful disregard.

Catazaro and Longhitano did not see photos of Waterbury.  They did not discuss Waterbury.

I believe that asserting that Finlay showed photos to a pimp,  and then removing the claim in the amended complaint was a deliberate ploy by the attorney.   Likewise falsely claiming at first that Waterbury was a member of NYCB,  and characterizing SAB as the "NYCB School"  were all attempts to create a false narrative that was favorable to his client.  Similarly,  in the Guardian article,  Waterbury is now saying that Ramasar "groped" women and that she had to ask Finlay to tell him to leave her alone because she didn't want to be touched,  and that she and several other dancers were "assaulted",  claims that were never put forth before.  Waterbury's recent behavior is so reckless I wonder if she's deliberately trying to get sued.

Link to post
Just now, On Pointe said:

Catazaro and Longhitano did not see photos of Waterbury.  They did not discuss Waterbury.

I believe that asserting that Finlay showed photos to a pimp,  and then removing the claim in the amended complaint was a deliberate ploy by the attorney.   Likewise falsely claiming at first that Waterbury was a member of NYCB,  and characterizing SAB as the "NYCB School"  were all attempts to create a false narrative that was favorable to his client.  Similarly,  in the Guardian article,  Waterbury is now saying that Ramasar "groped" women and that she had to ask Finlay to tell him to leave her alone because she didn't want to be touched,  and that she and several other dancers were "assaulted",  claims that were never put forth before.  Waterbury's recent behavior is so reckless I wonder if she's deliberately trying to get sued.

You're just trying to slut shame her.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, canbelto said:

You're just trying to slut shame her.

Nonsense.  Waterbury's behavior is odd and over-the-top,  but not what anybody would call slutty.  Believing herself to have been wronged does not give her carte blanche to make very damaging statements about other people.  It doesn't give her the right to harass Maxwell because she refuses to join in.

Link to post
23 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Nonsense.  Waterbury's behavior is odd and over-the-top,  but not what anybody would call slutty.  Believing herself to have been wronged does not give her carte blanche to make very damaging statements about other people.  It doesn't give her the right to harass Maxwell because she refuses to join in.

She's not harassing Maxwell. They have a strong personal conflict.

Edited by canbelto
Link to post

While understandable, since it often becomes a re-living of trauma when perpetrators of abuse and bad behavior are seen to be doing well, or, if dead, deified, I think Waterbury's recent statements are ill-advised.  

Link to post

Just to address the claim that Maxwell believes only one photo of her was sent, here is the relevant part of the statement (emphasis mine):

The only photograph that was shared by Amar was of me, his girlfriend of nearly five years. I knew about the photos of me when they were taken, and while sharing it privately with a close friend was a misstep in judgment, Amar immediately told me when he sent them to Chase and his sincerest regrets have led us to today, where we reside together and are building a loving and happy relationship. The incident was a personal matter between me and Amar, and I am okay with what happened.

It seems like a grammatical error or editing mistake on the first sentence, but the rest of the paragraph clearly refers to photos in the plural form. Furthermore, her comments when responding to people on Instagram always refer to "photos" instead of "photo".

Link to post
26 minutes ago, canbelto said:

She's not harassing Maxwell. They have a strong personal conflict.

Waterbury outed Maxwell unnecessarily and is continuing to force her into a conflict she doesn't want to have.  Seems like harassment to me.

2 minutes ago, canbelto said:

The comments by Waterbury about Maxwell aren't very nice but as a high school teacher I know this is how younger people fight. They do it all via social media. 

Alexa Maxwell is twenty-five years old.  This isn't Mean Girls.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Waterbury outed Maxwell unnecessarily and is continuing to force her into a conflict she doesn't want to have.  Seems like harassment to me.

Maxwell outted herself with a statement and made a countercharge against Waterbury. These two ladies obviously don't like each other and as I said this is the millennial way of announcing they don't like each other.

Edited by canbelto
Link to post
12 minutes ago, canbelto said:

Maxwell outted herself with a statement and made a countercharge against Maxwell. These two ladies obviously don't like each other and as I said this is the millennial way of announcing they don't like each other.

The day before Maxwell released her statement, Waterbury named her in a tweet accusing her of illegally recording their phone conversation and violating her privacy. Not sure if that affected Maxwell's decision to go public or not.

For what it's worth, Maxwell's social media activity seems to be primarily about correcting people about their misconceptions regarding Amar sending photos of other women. Waterbury, on the other hand, has been on a war path, even referring to Maxwell as a "bitch."

Link to post
5 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:

The day before Maxwell released her statement, Waterbury named her in a tweet accusing her of illegally recording their phone conversation and violating her privacy. Not sure if that affected Maxwell's decision to go public or not.

For what it's worth, Maxwell's social media activity seems to be primarily about correcting people about their misconceptions regarding Amar sending photos of other women. Waterbury, on the other hand, has been on a war path, even referring to Maxwell as a "bitch."

I'm not saying this is right, but as I said, as a high school teacher, this is just the way young people deal with conflict. This is what I deal with everyday. 

Link to post

I saw this comment on Waterbury's Instagram:

"Here is my question to you. Why aren’t you concentrating on Chase? Why not bring Chases name up since he was your perpetrator? I realize you wanted all of the men to be fired and to have their lives destroyed, will you continue to haunt them for the rest of your life? I realize how painful it was to have been so exposed, but it was Chase that did that!! Not Ramasar! I hope that there will be healing for you AND the men."

 A very good question indeed.

1 hour ago, yukionna4869 said:

The day before Maxwell released her statement, Waterbury named her in a tweet accusing her of illegally recording their phone conversation and violating her privacy. Not sure if that affected Maxwell's decision to go public or not.

For what it's worth, Maxwell's social media activity seems to be primarily about correcting people about their misconceptions regarding Amar sending photos of other women. Waterbury, on the other hand, has been on a war path, even referring to Maxwell as a "bitch."

At this point a psych eval might be a good idea.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, canbelto said:

I'm not saying this is right, but as I said, as a high school teacher, this is just the way young people deal with conflict. This is what I deal with everyday. 

I’m trying to follow your point and I don’t understand. This online back and forth may be common, as you state, but how are Waterbury’s posts and naming Ms Maxwell different from harassment?

I’m wondering if this has been going on in private for two years. Teenagers also commit suicide based on online activity.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

I’m trying to follow your point and I don’t understand. This online back and forth may be common, as you state, but how are Waterbury’s posts and naming Ms Maxwell different from harassment?

I’m wondering if this has been going on in private for two years. Teenagers also commit suicide based on online activity.

Just saying this is baby cakes compared to the online shaming, fighting, bullying, airdropping of photoshopped photos, name calling, and the tears and drama that occur on a daily basis between “friends” on social media that teachers have to deal with every day. So ppl who aren’t used to these online wars and takedowns might be shocked at some of the harsh language used by Alexandra but it’s simply the “fighting language” used today. It is what it is. 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I saw this comment on Waterbury's Instagram:

"Here is my question to you. Why aren’t you concentrating on Chase? Why not bring Chases name up since he was your perpetrator? I realize you wanted all of the men to be fired and to have their lives destroyed, will you continue to haunt them for the rest of your life? I realize how painful it was to have been so exposed, but it was Chase that did that!! Not Ramasar! I hope that there will be healing for you AND the men."

 A very good question indeed.

At this point a psych eval might be a good idea.  

I could just as easily say the same about Maxwell for staying with Amar...

But I think both women deserve respect and neither are crazy.  I can't pretend to know how I would feel in either of their situations.  

Link to post

It is astounding to me that this Waterbury issue is still dragging on. She seems to have stopped directly and publicly attacking everyone except for Ramasar (who did not send her photos but sent Maxwell's). Waterbury brought Maxwell's name into things a day before Maxwell made her statement. It is also stated that Maxwell decided to speak out in response to the recent media attention that has been escalating. I think it was brave for Maxwell to state her truth, and thought she did so clearly and decently. Maxwell is allowed to speak her truth just as Waterbury has had no problem speaking hers. I hope that Waterbury's lawyers are monitoring her social media content because she is getting dangerously close to getting herself into trouble from what I have seen. Harassing Maxwell, name-calling, accusing her of being financially dependent on Ramasar and uneducated seems to be the complete opposite of being supportive of a so-called "victim." She goes as far as publicly talking about nude photos of Maxwell on her Instagram stories. I assume Maxwell did not giver her permission to do so and I do not blame Maxwell for becoming fed up with a situation that I assume she and Ramasar have been dealing with every single day. If Maxwell is telling people that she knew and chose to forgive Ramasar, then that is her right. I hope that both of these young women can find peace at the end of this.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...