7/23 Court Date

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The lady in red isn't even scoldy. I agree it's a bit odd, but she doesn't come off as confrontational to me. I agree she could be 'probing' to see what the guy with the camera was up to outside, but she could be just making small talk for all we know for sure.
 
The lady in red isn't even scoldy. I agree it's a bit odd, but she doesn't come off as confrontational to me. I agree she could be 'probing' to see what the guy with the camera was up to outside, but she could be just making small talk for all we know for sure.
I agree. For all we know she thought Ramm was just being a creep taking pictures of women coming out of the courthouse (as opposed to a creep taking pictures of a creep coming out of the courthouse).

But, yeah, her tone of voice isn't really scoldy or harsh for someone coming from court. It's a very dissimilar environment from where you'd normally just casually talk to someone.
 
So it seems there's footage floating around that I've missed?
 
So the video everybody seems to talk about is only available to the inner circle?
 
As somebody who deals with sensitive data of questionable legality on a daily basis, I don't really agree with how the community handles these information dumps. The videos are legal. In the US its not a crime to video tape in a public space. If the video were posted on youtube and linked here the only people liable for any harassment of the WK would be the weens themselves. It is also within the right of any of us who take the time to attend these events to withhold any photos, videos, or transcripts as they see fit. The "content" is their property and they are free to share as much or as little as they please. We shouldn't let the reluctance to release footage take away from their effort.

Where I am bothered is the "Inner Circle" talk. Nervous to share content or want to run it by some people privately, then by all means do so. If you honestly thought that the footage would cause liability then why publicly mention you have an extended version at all? People can find you if they are keen enough. Letting certain people discuss the footage while the rest can't see it comes off less as a precaution and more as an attempt at celebrity. Either release the footage or not. Don't tease the public.
 
So the video everybody seems to talk about is only available to the inner circle?

Purity much, but the inner circle isn't what most people think. It's not even got much to do with Chris other than this video an being on the same forum it's quite boring really an there is no hoarded content in there other than that video an to be honest your not missing much a few seconds of shakey video.
 
Really, I'm fine with leaving the "White Knight" footage under wraps. She's still pretty much a "civilian" who doesn't deserve to get dragged into the CWC circus. If she goes out of her way to insert herself into the circus, that's another matter.
 
I think I have an old pair of spyfocals (glasses with a 720p camera built in them) laying around somewhere. They're really cheap nowadays and would completely resolve the issue with field reporters stirring up trouble in court. Not sure at all if that's legal though.

If you're going to that much trouble trying to get some Chris content it might not be a terrible investment (they're also pretty fun to goof around with).
 
Really, I'm fine with leaving the "White Knight" footage under wraps. She's still pretty much a "civilian" who doesn't deserve to get dragged into the CWC circus. If she goes out of her way to insert herself into the circus, that's another matter.

From what little we know about her I'd agree wholeheartedly with that assessment, this is pure speculation but I think she might be some form of Court appointed wrangler for Chris or some one involved in assessing Just how capable he is the incident he is currently in court for proves Barb is unwilling or incapable of supervising Chris in the manner he needs and he can't be trusted to stay out of trouble on his own.

That's really the only logical explanation I can think of that makes any form of sense.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BillRiley
she might be some form of Court appointed wrangler
I doubt it. For the court to appoint somebody like a conservator there would have needed to be an adjudication of some kind. Chris surely would have fought this. Otherwise, the court generally isn't in the business of doing things outside of factfinding and making determinations of law.

I also honestly doubt she has anything to do with the PD office, unless she's a pure volunteer; they have enough funding trouble defending the competent.

Really, the three plausible options are: (1) PD office intern/extern, (2) social worker, and (3) pure white knight (which includes busybodies met online, church people, and LGBT activists). I don't really have enough data to make a guess as to which is more plausible.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
I think I have an old pair of spyfocals (glasses with a 720p camera built in them) laying around somewhere. They're really cheap nowadays and would completely resolve the issue with field reporters stirring up trouble in court. Not sure at all if that's legal though.

If you're going to that much trouble trying to get some Chris content it might not be a terrible investment (they're also pretty fun to goof around with).

I think if you bring that into a courtroom you're going to have a bad time. Not necessarily jail but you'll probably be grilled at the metal detector and easily outed as a troll if any white knights are nearby. Maybe have a friend hang out outside with it, but he'd be bored to death.
 
From what little we know about her I'd agree wholeheartedly with that assessment, this is pure speculation but I think she might be some form of Court appointed wrangler for Chris or some one involved in assessing Just how capable he is the incident he is currently in court for proves Barb is unwilling or incapable of supervising Chris in the manner he needs and he can't be trusted to stay out of trouble on his own.

That's really the only logical explanation I can think of that makes any form of sense.

If she's somehow involved in keeping Chris from getting distressed and people are doing things that, while within their rights, are causing him distress, it's entirely reasonable for someone whose job that is to try to stop it, at least by reasonable means like asking. It doesn't give her or Chris any special rights, and to the extent it's legal, people can obviously continue doing anything legal.

Generally, that would include recording in public where there is no expectation of privacy.

However, my advice about anything in court, whether the courtroom or even the courthouse itself, is just don't record anything unless you have explicit authorization or have been advised by a lawyer who practices in Virginia that this is okay. Violations of recording laws in court are subject to civil and possibly criminal contempt penalties.

There may also be issues with intercepting attorney/client communications, but to some extent, counsel is expected to take reasonable measures not to do things like, for instance, blabbing privileged material in public while someone is openly videotaping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back