Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

Subject: Oh good lord. It does NOT mean no crime was committed. It means she hasn't been tried and found guilty for a crime...yet Author: No name [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 13:45:26 10/14/24 Mon Author Host/IP: syn-065-035-010-231.res.spectrum.com/65.35.10.231 In reply to: (don't shoot the messenger) 's message, "Restraining orders are civil court mandates, not criminal court convictions. This means no crime was committed, so legally speaking, Victoria is not a "criminal." " on 11:30:51 10/14/24 Mon [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Remember: Facts Are Facts. Civil courts do not handle criminal cases, so anything that leads to a restraining order is not legally classified as a crime. Even if someone sues Victoria for her appalling misbehavior and wins a financial settlement, she still wouldn't be labeled a "criminal" because the matter would again be resolved in a civil court. Our opinions are just speculative at best. Having said that, my opinion is that she hasn't been sued yet because everyone is waiting for the district attorney to decide if there is enough evidence to have her arrested and prosecuted for a crime. If that happens and she is found guilty, then she will indeed be a criminal. Subsequently, the young women she injured will have a much better chance of a favorable outcome in civil court. (NT) No name (NoHost/172.59.227.172) 16:31:50 10/14/24 Mon 100% Agree with you, but the court granting the restraining order should of been enough to disqualify Victoria from competing for Miss PA as it is in all the contestants contract that bullying is grounds for removal from the competition. It has been proven in a court of law that Victoria did in fact send the threatening text messages and no one from Victoria's side has given any explanation to her innocence. (NT) -- No name, 16:50:24 10/14/24 Mon (ue.tmodns.net/172.56.28.157) Yes, facts are facts, and the statement "This means no crime was committed" is objectively FALSE. It may be your opinion that no crime was committed, but it most certainly is NOT fact. Someone having a restraining order against them does not automatically mean no crime was committed (NT) -- No name, 00:00:08 10/15/24 Tue (syn-065-035-010-231.res.spectrum.com/65.35.10.231) AGAIN...it is important to remember that legally, Victoria is not a criminal until she has been arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime. Any verbal or written comments suggesting otherwise could give her legitimate grounds to claim abuse and take legal action against those making such statements. Victoria and her supporters could very easily use the fact that this board is being used to vilify, humiliate, and incite hatred against her (almost the full definition of a hate crime) to turn her into a martyr. Why don't we give the PA legal system time to put their case together? After all, she really doesn't need our help to ruin her life - she's done that all on her own. (NT) -- No name, 17:28:11 10/15/24 Tue (NoHost/172.59.227.172) I doubt anyone is actually scared of her. Anything she tries to sue for will only expose more of her own texts. Can't win a suit if everything said is true. You should look up how the martyrdom worked out for a girl named Katy Johnson who was a former Miss VT (NT) -- No name, 23:30:20 10/16/24 Wed (ns560559.ip-54-39-107.net/54.39.107.46) Just because it didn't work for Katy doesn't mean acting the martyr hasn't worked out for untold numbers around the world for decades. Add to that the fact that Katy really didn't have the built-in fan base Victoria already has despite her actions.. Finally, your assertion that inappropriate behavior would be excused in court because it was in response to worse inappropriate behavior is SO wrong on SO many levels that it has eliminated you as a credible voice on this issue. (NT) -- No name, 16:31:04 10/19/24 Sat (NoHost/172.59.227.172) Ummm, when did I say that bad behavior would be excused? Not once did I say that. I think you totally miss the comparison to Katy J. Katy J's boyfriend wrote a tell-all about her just after she gave up her crown. Katy sued for defamation. She was then found to be a liar when the ex-boyfriend published photos to document everything he said. Same will happen in this case if the young lady in question sues. Robyn has the receipts, clearly. That's how she got the restraining order (NT) -- No name, 10:47:47 10/20/24 Sun (syn-065-035-010-231.res.spectrum.com/65.35.10.231) So if you read the news stories or listen to the interviews Robyn did, she’s been pushing for this to be investigated more. The police keep saying no because they believe it’s just girls being catty. The officer that took her initial police report even testified that he thought it was just a case of a girl being jealous and catty. That’s why Robyn went civil instead of criminal. Even with the trace of the messages back to her phone number and email, the police refused to do more. (NT) -- No name, 14:54:43 10/15/24 Tue (NoHost/162.120.70.145)