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

All Defendants Except Finlay Are Dismissed from Alexandra Waterbury's Lawsuit


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Fairandlove said:

2) That would show that this case was brought for financial gain and not on the principle of holding all accountable.

Asking for money damages doesn't mean the suit was brought solely for financial gain rather than out of a desire that someone be held accountable or to make a larger societal point. (If I recall correctly, Waterbury asked for money damages specifically to cover the cost of therapy.) Since this was a civil rather than criminal action, money damages is just about the only meaningful punishment that can be imposed. Merson's firm wouldn't take on the case merely to extract an apology in any event.

Link to post
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. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, On Pointe said:

In my opinion,  no,  it didn't.  It may have negatively impacted the public image of Finlay and Ramasar,  but I don't believe it hurt the company's image.

I think every time a big scandal happens within the ballet world that somehow seems to hint at its inner world the company image gets indeed tainted. Being Bolshoi with the acid attack, being a ballerina speaking out -( Kirkland, Volochkova, Womack, Morgan among others), being an AD being removed due to sexual conduct-( Martins)- bits and pieces of the enclosed world of ballet is revealed as a Pandora's box for the rest of the world to peak and be scandalized at. And those stories stay somehow in people's minds. Tell me that if after the acid attack your vision of how the Bolshoi was the same...

Edited by cubanmiamiboy
Link to post
On 10/12/2020 at 7:34 PM, canbelto said:

Larry Nassar - the first complaints about him were made in the 1990's. It took over 20 years to put this guy in jail.

Harvey Weinstein - see above

Due process only applies to white men in society. It does not apply to POC who are often jailed for trivial, non-violent crimes while violent white murders and rapists are given the benefit of the doubt. It does not apply to women who are shamed, disbelieved, dismissed, and harassed for speaking the truth. 

Larry Nassar, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, O.J. Simpson. The list of white men who have gotten away with rape and murder is endless.

Link to post
41 minutes ago, cubanmiamiboy said:

I think every time a big scandal happens within the ballet world that somehow seems to hint at its inner world the company image gets indeed tainted. Being Bolshoi with the acid attack, being a ballerina speaking out -( Kirkland, Volochkova, Womack, Morgan among others), being an AD being removed due to sexual conduct-( Martins)- bits and pieces of the enclosed world of ballet is revealed as a Pandora's box for the rest of the world to peak and be scandalized at. And those stories stay somehow in people's minds. Tell me that if after the acid attack your vision of how the Bolshoi was the same...

I think it's reaching big time to compare the Bolshoi acid attack with the Waterbury case.  James Levine and several orchestral players were accused of far more egregious behavior than Peter Martins,  but I've seen little evidence that the Met and the New York Philharmonic are considered "tainted" by their audiences.  It's likely that only hard core ballet followers are still talking about Waterbury and Finlay.  "The dogs bark,  the caravan moves on."

Link to post

The Met and NYCB in suspending, then attempting to fire Ramasar and Catazaro and by making it clear they were trying to fire Finlay, were seen as trying to remedy the situation, however late in the game it was for the Met.

Link to post
On 10/12/2020 at 7:34 PM, canbelto said:

"Believe all women" because over time, accusations of sexual assault and rape committed by men have proven OVERWHELMINGLY to be true.

Larry Nassar - the first complaints about him were made in the 1990's. It took over 20 years to put this guy in jail.

Harvey Weinstein - see above

Due process only applies to white men in society. It does not apply to POC who are often jailed for trivial, non-violent crimes while violent white murders and rapists are given the benefit of the doubt. It does not apply to women who are shamed, disbelieved, dismissed, and harassed for speaking the truth. 

Due process is overrated. The only way rape and sexual assault will stop is if we BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN. Make men suffer collectively for the way women have been victimized over the years.

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.

I am so sorry that happened to you CanBelto. So sorry to hear about it. It does change one's perspective, I imagine. I think it's completely right that that sort of activity is criminalized and that it be referred to as sexual assault. The legal system is slow to respond to changes in technology, but things do seem to be moving in that direction. 

A few people here are posting as if the #MeToo movement is over. I don't see any evidence of that. I don't think we're going to return to the days when all men (or people of power) can abuse the less fortunate with impunity. There is a roadmap towards justice, and steps the recipients of such abuse can follow to hold the powerful to account.

That said, I don't think we need to "believe all women." Even though the overwhelming majority of claims are true, we need to give complaints credence, investigate accordingly and prosecute the perpetrators. Yes, the system favors the powerful, but that can change. 

Larry Nasser, Harvey Weinstein and  Jeffrey Epstein are all examples of the change.

Link to post
11 hours ago, YouOverThere said:

Larry Nassar, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, O.J. Simpson. The list of white men who have gotten away with rape and murder is endless.

The list may be endless, but these particular men ALL went to jail. Three are in prison presently.

Link to post

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.

 

 

Link to post
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.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, Fairandlove said:

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.

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.

Link to post
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

Link to post

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.

 

Link to post
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.

Link to post
5 hours ago, FPF said:

I don't understand all the legal ins and outs of this case, but it looks to me like Chase Finlay is appealing some of the decision. Among the many "interesting" claims this appeal makes is that Waterbury assaulted Finlay.

Details: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=1w8RR10q1obR_PLUS_l_PLUS_goRiN3Q==

Well that made for interesting reading,  and for me,  not one bit of it was a surprise.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Fairandlove said:

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.

The men had to do nothing:  they had many defenders, some of whom contacted us through our Contact Us form.  Anyone who felt bad or outraged could have leaked excerpts of her social media easily with little traceability.

If she's been blackmailing people, I expect the police to show up at her door.

Link to post
6 hours 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. 

If I read it right,  the countersuit states that Waterbury not only knew about the photos,  the two of them enjoyed viewing such photos together,  and she asked Finlay for similar photos of his private parts.  So apparently the existence of the photos of her wasn't unknown to her and weren't taken secretly.

Finlay should have gotten ahead of this story.  By not doing so,  he allowed her to win the PR war and paint herself as a wronged innocent instead of the bunny boiler she seems to be,  according to his account of her slugging him and him having to call the police and an ambulance to get her out of his apartment.

Link to post
17 hours ago, Fairandlove said:

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.

I agree. Also, Finlay did behave reprehensibly even if he can prove himself innocent of intent and it would be foolish of him to try to downplay that. 

I'm guessing that any such circulation of the posts by the men or contacts friendly to the men at that stage would have done nothing to deflect Waterbury and backfired badly, no matter how awful they made Waterbury look. 

Link to post

It's very possible that the women who heeded Waterbury's call as a social justice warrior are appalled by her own comments about women.  Without them picketing and protesting in person and on social media, she would have been shouting into the wind at some point: that's what kept her in the news after the initial coverage.  They might also have stopped following her on social media, and social media networks and Influencing are driven by the number of followers, with that support being monetized.

Or there are a bunch of young women who don't care what she says about women but think they are supporting a pro-women platform anyway.  If she doesn't lose those followers who commented on and "liked" her social posts -- ie, if they aren't replaced by others --and especially if they post support now, that's a pretty strong argument against her being considered anti-women, which is the argument in the counterclaims.  If they abandon her in droves after she's been "outed," then that strengthens the argument that the counterclaims are making.

Of course, the courts aren't run by young people.

Link to post

What an absolute mess.  All of it.

My personal take-aways:

  • Choose your friends (and lovers) wisely.
  • Stay away from drugs and alcohol.
  • Remember that anything you send by email/text or post on social media never actually goes away, no matter how you might try.
Link to post
On 10/16/2020 at 8:40 PM, Fairandlove said:

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

Disgusting.  Extorsion 101.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...