« Program reminder – NYCB Fall Digital Season Week 3 | Main | Program reminder – NYCB Fall digital Season Week 4 »

October 15, 2020

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Masterful is right Haglund, thanks for the link. If there's any justice, she'll be on the hook for damages and attorneys' fees, none of which should be dischargeable in bankruptcy because she acted with malice.

She first tried to extort two individuals, ironically enough one of them who she wound up NOT naming in her lawsuit, and then she tried to blackmail said two individuals. Furthermore, her text conversations which have been published by Finlay's counsel, clearly show she not only knew about the naked pictures he took, which one can conclude she gave permission to take, but she also ASKED him to send naked photos. On top of all of this she has used the same language (and often times even worse language) she had sued the defendants for using in their text messages. I would venture to say this girl is going down HARD. What a false prophet for all these young girls! She made it look like she was a victim and raised support from so many women, but in fact, she was the real issue. This is NOT a girl that young girls should look up to at all. She also disgraces any women that actually experienced REAL sexual abuse, etc.

I think the goal has always been to get to the document discovery process and then fish for items that the defendants would pay handsomely not to disclose in court proceedings or to the public. Finlay's lawyer is smart to request that discovery proceedings be delayed until after his appeal has been decided. If Finlay wins that appeal, it effectively ends the case for everyone. But in order to keep all of the publicity going, the plaintiff may appeal the decisions relative to NYCB, SAB and the other plaintiffs. It is so self-destructive. She seems to believe that there will be some honor in going down in flames, but the reality is that she's just damaging her own reputation and future. Pre-employment screenings wouldn't miss something like this, and a cursory look at her behavior throughout would pretty much end opportunities.

I don't disagree with you. The defendants can also petition to have discovery sealed as well - I think. I believe Finlay's counsel also mentioned this too. You have to remember that there are plenty more tidbits about Waterbury to be exposed too if this goes to discovery. I would have to assume her lawyer will warn her about this, but based on previous behavior I don't think it matters to her as you alluded to, or her counsel.

I'm very curious what the five other defendants are thinking. I'd venture to say that NYCB and SAB are just going to let this go as it isn't worth their time. On the other hand, maybe they'll want to make a point not to falsely accuse as both of their reputations have been tarnished. The other three defendants clearly have causes of action against her. The question is the same as if Waterbury were to win. What can they reasonably expect from her? She's most likely judgment proof. If, however, they can sue Merson as well for his outright unethical behavior as an officer of the court then there may be something for them to gain financially. I actually feel really bad for all three of them as they did absolutely nothing wrong. Yes, their texts and behavior was not great, but hey, this is a free country to act and say as you please. From a legal perspective, they did nothing wrong. One of the first things you learn in law school is to leave morality outside of the court; morality is relative and what you think is immoral may perfectly be moral to me. It has no place in the courtroom. Just facts.

Finlay's lawyer has made a point in his appeal that the Plaintiff has been removing evidence from her Instagram account and that because this lawsuit was in process, she had an obligation to preserve the evidence. For a short time, someone published a Waterbury Archive I-gram account to help her remember what she had removed from her page. LOL

Appeal issue 1 is weak IMO and should have been left out. In any case, the thing that I find most disturbing in the Answer is in paragraphs 379 and 380. Nguyen only got 6 months ! Admittedly, financial fraud crimes make me especially nuts but he should have received a minimum of 6 years. A six month slap on the wrist is outrageous.

“ Nguyen is a convicted embezzler of approximately $335,000-from a 96-year- old blind man for whom he worked as a home health care aide.‘

“Nguyen pleaded guilty to multiple felonies on or about June 4, 2018 in the New York State Supreme Court, Criminal Term including Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree and Endangering the Welfare of an Incompetent Person in the First Degree and was sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment.”

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)