Ethan Ralph's December 16th, 2020 Revenge Porn Arrest & Trial - Trial outcome: Ralph pled No Contest, was found guilty and has a 1yr suspended sentence (not probation).

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

What will happen?

  • Plea deal with no jail time

    Votes: 56 25.0%
  • Plea deal with jail time

    Votes: 44 19.6%
  • Guilty with no jail time

    Votes: 31 13.8%
  • Guilty with jail time

    Votes: 37 16.5%
  • Not guilty, alawgs btfo'd, Can't Abort the Retort!

    Votes: 33 14.7%
  • Ralph aborts himself

    Votes: 19 8.5%
  • Other (explain in post)

    Votes: 4 1.8%

  • Total voters
    224
  • Poll closed .
That's tough shit. When May was talking to Faith, May and Ralph's plan was (literally) to have FAITH get a job so May could be a live-in nanny while she worked to help support the unit. May is not going to do shit and is probably already looking for a new cock with more money.

What a man. Gets a teenager pregnant then wants her to work and support him while some pedo degenerate Ralph is fucking “cares” for their child. He’d also expect Faith to apply for welfare, food stamps and healthcare benefits as a single mother.

Truly the vanguard of the values of traditional white manhood.
 
Why are you ignoring the first half of that sentence?

Prosecutor: "Ethan Ralph released revenge porn of Faith."
Defense: "Ethan Ralph did not release revenge porn of Faith."
Faith: "I want to state very clearly that Ethan Ralph absolutely did not release revenge porn of me."

They have to also prove this statement was made under duress or by threat so it cannot be entered as evidence at all.
Irrelevant. Ralph told her she was hacked and she believed him. She didn't say she consented to him releasing it to own the haydurs. Just because you are wrong about who the perpetrator is doesn't mean you forfeit your right to justice.
 
Irrelevant. Ralph told her she was hacked and she believed him. She didn't say she consented to him releasing it to own the haydurs. Just because you are wrong about who the perpetrator is doesn't mean you forfeit your right to justice.
That's a cool legal theory but I've noticed Internet legal theories are always wrong.
 
Is that how paroles work? I'm a good boy and I've never even spoken to a cop.
ok so basically probation is youre out for good but the state gets to babysit you for a set amount of years, going back into jail is unlikely barring new charges but if you fuck up your probation is reset i.e. you get 1 year in to 2 years probation, piss dirty, go before a judge and guess what - back to square 1

parole is the same thing epect if you fuck up you are going straight back to jail for the duration of your remaining parole
so if you get 1 year in, fuck up, you spend the rest of that time inside including any new time that may get added

now all of this is completely depenendent on you, how you look on paper, your P.O. and your relationship with said P.O.

i knew a guy who pissed dirty constantly but his P.O. just didnt care - only saw him once every 3 months maybe if he could make it
and whn it happened hes said almost verbatim "weedds fine but try to stay off the cocaine, phil" and then just just things moves on
 
That's a cool legal theory but I've noticed Internet legal theories are always wrong.
But you have opposing legal theories, so which legal theory is wrong? They can't all be wrong, what is Rackets saying about this? Just take the opposite stance from him. lmao
 
But you have opposing legal theories, so which legal theory is wrong? They can't all be wrong, what is Rackets saying about this? Just take the opposite stance from him. lmao
Null is an expert future former aspiring lawyer, not some internet amateur.
 
That's a cool legal theory but I've noticed Internet legal theories are always wrong.
but then that means yours is also wrong, it doesnt matter though hes on trial and well just have to wait and see which way ralphs life is ruined afterwards

But you have opposing legal theories, so which legal theory is wrong? They can't all be wrong, what is Rackets saying about this? Just take the opposite stance from him. lmao
rackets said vickers had no case so its pretty much confirmed likely for bang me in the ass big boy prison.

Null is an expert future former aspiring lawyer, not some internet amateur.
that means about as much to me and to most as any internet autist looking into law.
 
That's a cool legal theory but I've noticed Internet legal theories are always wrong.
Your house gets robbed while you are at work. The police ask you if it was your neighbor Tyrone. You tell them no, Tyrone is one of the good ones, he would never do that. A week later you get a notice from the detectives department saying that Tyrone did indeed steal your anime waifu doll collection but that he cannot be prosecuted because of the legally binding principle of no takesies backsies.
 
Your house gets robbed while you are at work. The police ask you if it was your neighbor Tyrone. You tell them no, Tyrone is one of the good ones, he would never do that. A week later you get a notice from the detectives department saying that Tyrone did indeed steal your anime waifu doll collection but that he cannot be prosecuted because of the legally binding principle of no takesies backsies.
Even though this is a completely different situation where physical evidence matters a lot more than the revenge porn case, yes actually your statements saying Tyrone was a friend can and would be used against you to make you look retarded and discredit you, especially when you only reported your shit missing after a huge argument with Tyrone.
 
Your house gets robbed while you are at work. The police ask you if it was your neighbor Tyrone. You tell them no, Tyrone is one of the good ones, he would never do that. A week later you get a notice from the detectives department saying that Tyrone did indeed steal your anime waifu doll collection but that he cannot be prosecuted because of the legally binding principle of no takesies backsies.
i can kind of see nulls point, ralph did make her say it in a way that if your favorable to ralph you could maybe construe as "he had permission to release it" i just think hes trying to prime himself for disappointment and not seeing all the evidence that that statement doesnt mean that

especially when you only reported your shit missing after a huge argument with Tyrone.
thats the much more daming statement imo you can much more easily say its just out of spite with that than trying to paint her as having consented to the release.

Who even takes rackets seriously anymore?
i use him as a reversed compass for legal matters
 
Irrelevant. Ralph told her she was hacked and she believed him. She didn't say she consented to him releasing it to own the haydurs. Just because you are wrong about who the perpetrator is doesn't mean you forfeit your right to justice.
Fai said she consented to the video being made but specifically left out, and didn’t say she consented it being released. Especially live, to her ex and all the alogs. It’ll be interesting to see how this is handled.

I know around 1k ~ witnessed it live.. so if witnesses are needed not a problem there..
 
Back
Top Bottom