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

6 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Indeed - and the producers have already stated their support for Ramasar.  It isn't clear if there is any outcome that would satisfy Waterbury.  She wants to end Ramasar's career,  she wants Maxwell to walk away from NYCB and break up with Ramasar,  she wants monetary compensation from NYCB and Catazaro and Longhitano,  who did not see photos of her or mention her name.  She has stated that "somebody has to pay" for what was done to her,  but she's forgiven the actual perpetrator.  Waterbury seems to derive great psychic income from this whole thing,  as if bringing down members of NYCB puts her on their professional level.  That may end up being her greatest reward.

Ugh. I hate this. Waterbury is not a perfect victim. She's mad and acting out and not being thoughtful about the things she says. But that is all part of the healing process. 

Link to post

In the big picture, it doesn't matter what any of us think, because it's not up for a vote.

No one has to like anything anyone else says here. 

Do not discuss the discussion.

Link to post
34 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

 She has stated that "somebody has to pay" for what was done to her,  but she's forgiven the actual perpetrator. 

Evidence she forgave the actual perpetrator please. I've seen NOTHING that suggests that.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, aurora said:

Evidence she forgave the actual perpetrator please. I've seen NOTHING that suggests that.

Yes...and in fact she was quite vocal with several f-bombs in her Instagram story that she was happy he disappeared and lost his job.  I didn't sense any forgiveness in her speech.

Link to post

I shouldn't have used the word "forgiven".  Waterbury is putting more energy into going after Maxwell and Ramasar because Finlay is not on the scene and she believes that he knows what he did was wrong.  Then there's his substance abuse problem,  which seems to absolve him of some responsibility.   So forgiven is the wrong word,  but she doesn't seem to care nearly as much about him as she does the others.  Instead of working through her anger,  Waterbury seems to be escalating.  I don't blame Maxwell for recording her calls.

Edited by On Pointe
Correction
Link to post
26 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I shouldn't have used the word "forgiven".  Waterbury is putting more energy into going after Waterbury and Ramasar because Finlay is not on the scene and she believes that he knows what he did was wrong.  Then there's his substance abuse problem,  which seems to absolve him of some responsibility.   So forgiven is the wrong word,  but she doesn't seem to care nearly as much about him as she does the others.  Instead of working through her anger,  Waterbury seems to be escalating.  I don't blame Maxwell for recording her calls.

Waterbury and Ramasar?

Link to post

Ok, since some people felt that talking about frontal lobes is diagnosing, I'll rephrase it in common language. Please know that I stated this was my opinion. An opinion is not a diagnosis. I believe that Waterbury is handling this immaturely. 

Link to post
54 minutes ago, vagansmom said:

Ok, since some people felt that talking about frontal lobes is diagnosing, I'll rephrase it in common language. Please know that I stated this was my opinion. An opinion is not a diagnosis. I believe that Waterbury is handling this immaturely. 

You are of course entitled to an opinion. I'm not sure I can easily explain (even to myself) why your statement of it left me uncomfortable. It wasn't the terminology, with which I'm familiar.

In any case, there are many reasons why Waterbury could be acting in a way that is or seems immature — not all of which are physical. Quite likely it's multidetermined.

Edited by nanushka
Link to post

I think it's this societal notion that women are not allowed to express anger. We are shrill, mentally ill, hysterical. But extreme anger as a response to trauma is very common. That anger can become destructive and abusive. But it's one of the most common responses to trauma.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Leah said:

I think that’s a great point. But directing all anger on social media and getting into public arguments online can’t be healthy. And does weaken her image as it does connote with teenage immaturity - probably unfairly more because she is female, I’ll admit. It pollutes the message she is trying to send. You can’t be an effective spokesperson for a cause - which I believe she is trying to do - and just lash out so unreservedly like that. It’s distracting, even if unfairly so.

 The public fights also really weaken her credibility if she ever testifies in a deposition or at trial. Ramasar’s attorney will probably have a field day with Maxwell exchanges.

Anyway, she’s obviously very vulnerable right now. I hope she has a healthy support system that can help her through this and rein her in a bit. I’m very uneasy about her lawyer, especially as he seems to have given her blatantly wrong advice about suing Maxwell over the recorded phone call. 

 

I agree that Alexandra's social media comments about Alexa are falling dangerously close to that old saying "abuse is a cycle." She seems to be directing so much of her anger at Alexa who so far hasn't said anything demeaning back to Alexandra. However I do think the cultural expectations for girls to play nice even when they're angry is at force here. Think about all the hoopla about Nancy Pelosi rather angrily tearing up Trump's SOTU address yet Trump's daily twitter rants don't even merit a mention on CNN anymore. 

Link to post
15 hours ago, canbelto said:

However I do think the cultural expectations for girls to play nice even when they're angry is at force here. Think about all the hoopla about Nancy Pelosi rather angrily tearing up Trump's SOTU address yet Trump's daily twitter rants don't even merit a mention on CNN anymore. 

A brilliant moment of theater, in quiet counterpoint to all the big action (Ralph Edwards, Dale Carnegie etc) happening in front – like an actor who does so much with so little. A brief intrusion of the real.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Quiggin said:

A brilliant moment of theater, in quiet counterpoint to all the big action (Ralph Edwards, Dale Carnegie etc) happening in front – like an actor who does so much with so little. A brief intrusion of the real.

🤔

Link to post

According to commenters on the Broadway World website,  all comments on West Side Story regarding  Ramasar,  Maxwell,  and Waterbury have been deleted.  One commenter suggested that the language used by some was so ugly that trying to police it was becoming too onerous.  Apparently the comments have been removed from Waterbury 's Instagram as well.

Link to post

Alexandra's IG stories are full of drama. Again. At this point I do agree her lawyers should advise her to take a break from social media. She's threatening to get Alexa Maxwell arrested for supposedly impersonating someone via email. People are now going to Alexa's IG to harass her about this fake email account. 

Link to post

I have no in-depth knowledge of the law, but understand that many of you are educated in this area.  My question is: at what point does Alexa have grounds for some kind of civil defamation suit against Alexandra?  Or does she?  Trying to put myself in Alexa's shoes here, though obviously that's impossible, and feeling like I would want to seek some legal solution to keep Alexandra from attacking me all over the internet.... 

Edited by bluejean
typo
Link to post
13 hours ago, canbelto said:

Alexandra's IG stories are full of drama. Again. At this point I do agree her lawyers should advise her to take a break from social media. She's threatening to get Alexa Maxwell arrested for supposedly impersonating someone via email. People are now going to Alexa's IG to harass her about this fake email account. 

I don't even know have to use IG, but I have an old account. How can I see all this ..? Do I have to follow her to do so....? Is there a link to the drama....?

Link to post

This article in the New York Times makes it clear that at some point in the near future,  somebody needs to rein in Alexandra Waterbury and her cohort of protesters.  Amar Ramasar's very able counsel points out that they are tossing around terms to the public like "sexual assault" without understanding their meaning or impact. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/theater/west-side-story-amar-ramasar.html

Link to post
15 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

This article in the New York Times makes it clear that at some point in the near future,  somebody needs to rein in Alexandra Waterbury and her cohort of protesters.  Amar Ramasar's very able counsel points out that they are tossing around terms to the public like "sexual assault" without understanding their meaning or impact.

Does this (below) represent a viable legal threat?

Quote

Last Thursday, as protesters chanted, a middle-aged man en route to the show said he did not know what the demonstration was about. One of the protesters told him that a cast member had “sexually assaulted” someone, an overstatement of the sort that Ms. Maxwell said led her to decide to publicly defend Mr. Ramasar. Mr. Gotko, Mr. Ramasar’s lawyer, complained that the protesters were “tossing off words and phrases like they have no meaning whatsoever.”

 

Link to post

47 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Does this (below) represent a viable legal threat?

 

What do you mean by the term "legal threat"?  I hope that the parents of the high school girl who has whipped up this protest have explained to her that making false accusations against someone could land her in serious trouble.  At this point she may not even be the main instigator,  but she's the one whose name is in the New York Times.  A cease and desist letter is certainly in order.

Link to post
44 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

What do you mean by the term "legal threat"?  I hope that the parents of the high school girl who has whipped up this protest have explained to her that making false accusations against someone could land her in serious trouble.  At this point she may not even be the main instigator,  but she's the one whose name is in the New York Times.  A cease and desist letter is certainly in order.

Sorry, yes, I should have explained my question better. You described Ramasar's lawyer as being "very able," and in the portion of the article I quoted he is described as "complain[ing]" that the protestors are "tossing off words and phrases like they have no meaning whatsoever." Do those complaints have potential legal force?

You seem to suggest that Waterbury and/or Levy (who I take to be the high school girl you're referencing) are liable for the impact of the words of one or more of the other protestors and that "somebody needs to rein [them] in." (Neither Waterbury nor Levy seems to have been the one who used the term "sexual assault," as cited in the article.) My question was what Ramasar's lawyer can legally do to stop (or seek compensation for) what's happening and specifically whether there's a strong case that Waterbury and/or Levy are indeed legally liable.

Edited by nanushka
Link to post
1 hour ago, nanushka said:

Sorry, yes, I should have explained my question better. You described Ramasar's lawyer as being "very able," and in the portion of the article I quoted he is described as "complain[ing]" that the protestors are "tossing off words and phrases like they have no meaning whatsoever." Do those complaints have potential legal force?

You seem to suggest that Waterbury and/or Levy (who I take to be the high school girl you're referencing) are liable for the impact of the words of one or more of the other protestors and that "somebody needs to rein [them] in." (Neither Waterbury nor Levy seems to have been the one who used the term "sexual assault," as cited in the article.) My question was what Ramasar's lawyer can legally do to stop (or seek compensation for) what's happening and specifically whether there's a strong case that Waterbury and/or Levy are indeed legally liable.

I described Ramasar's lawyer as "very able" because of his excellent answer to Waterbury's lawsuit.  In my opinion,  it was the best by far of the defendant pleadings.

I'm not a lawyer,  but Waterbury and her supporters antics seem to me to fit the definition of slander - the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation.  Any casual observer of the protesters might reasonably conclude,  based on the signs and the slick handouts featuring a glamor shot of Waterbury,  that Ramasar had physically assaulted her.  Their demand that the producers of WSS fire him show clear intent to harm him.  Waterbury's continuing efforts to engage Alexa Maxwell,  after Maxwell has made it clear that her intrusions are unwelcome,  might constitute harassment.  

The producers have made their statement - they are not going to fire Ramasar without cause.  Good thing,  because under their agreement with Actors Equity,  they would have to pay him for the term of his contract whether he performed or not.  It would also be grossly unfair.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...