Today we're gonna dive into the nitty-gritty of Remnant From the Ashes, the action-packed video game that will leave you both ecstatic and questioning your sanity.

Picture this: a small community space filled with rusty metal and moldy skids, where inhabitants trade scrap for items and services to the adventurers. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, where cold hard iron is the currency of choice, used to enhance weapons of destruction and armor of salvation. And in the midst of it all, three fearless adventurers embark on a journey that will test their mettle.

After several minutes of preparation, our heroes gather around a giant red crystal in the central hub, placing their hands on it and instantly being transported back to a decaying world they had earlier left behind. The stage is set, and the action begins.

As they make their way towards their destination, a giant root dragon swoops down and lands, roaring and spewing flame and acrid smoke everywhere. The survivors scatter for cover, but not our hero. He approaches the beast from its flank, blasting away with his shotgun, while the group's hunter dives through the window of a broken-down building and a former cultist who had recently joined the squad begins hammering the beast's glowing chest with coach gun blasts.

A true symphony of destruction fills the arena - gunshots, crumbling rock and debris, monstrous roars, fire crackling - it's all happening at once. But the battle is far from over. Our hero gets knocked down, and the cultist tries to revive him, but the boss’s minions keep spawning in and interrupting the long process, causing him to flee only to be caught in another fire blast knocking him down as well.

The final survivor thins the minions and rolls back and forth trying to revive the fallen comrades, but keeps getting staggered or attacked until finally, they are defeated. This process repeats itself twenty times, each time our heroes become more outmatched than the last. But they don't give up.

Eventually, the cultist leaves, and it's just our hero and the hunter. They use consumables, they keep their distance, they close the gap, and focus on the boss and minions. Nothing seems to work, but they don't give up. And then it happens - they soak enough damage, kill just the right amount of minions, move just right, avoid just the right attacks, and finally, the dragon is slain.

It's an epic victory, and our heroes are exhausted but greatly satisfied. This is what kept our hero playing Remnant, even when it was crushing him into dust - the pursuit of these victories against foes he was not meant to be a match for. But after 40 hours of this, he was left with a mixed bag of feelings about the game - was it genius or short bus?

Remnant is a ‘souls-like’ game that basically answers the what-if “Dark Souls but with guns”.  Let me tell you, it definitely delivers on that front. The controls and combat system are flawless, taking cues from Dark Souls and adding a satisfying emphasis on ranged combat.

However, the game seems to suffer from an identity crisis. It tries to be like Diablo or Borderlands with its randomized loot and rogue-like maps, but the implementation of these features feels half-baked and out of place. The game's key equipment upgrades are mainly tied to killing bosses, finishing quests and dungeons, or killing bosses again. This design choice feels like a missed opportunity to fully explore the potential of the game's randomized loot and map system.

 It's a classic case of jack of all trades, master of none. The game excels at the core gameplay mechanics, but other features feel tacked on or poorly executed. Despite these shortcomings, I found myself drawn to the game's epic battles against powerful bosses and the sense of satisfaction that comes from overcoming overwhelming odds.

 Overall, Remnant from the Ashes is a solid game that excels at what it sets out to do: provide a Dark Souls-like experience with a focus on ranged combat. However, the additional features feel half-baked and don't fully explore the game's potential.

Remnant From the Ashes offers a fantastic gameplay loop that takes players through a post-apocalyptic world filled with tribal desert dwellings and cityscapes. Fans of games like Borderlands and Fallout will definitely enjoy the setting and atmosphere. In fact, the game is reminiscent of Hellgate: London with its randomized level design, aesthetically pleasing environment, and monster designs.

 However, the game's boss encounters are where the gameplay falls apart. Each boss encounter is either poorly executed, a minor inconvenience, or an unfair mess. One early boss encounter involves fighting against a boss that splits into multiple copies of itself. Every quarter of its health, it splits into another instance of itself. While they all share the same health bar, the bosses aggressively attack with melee, ranged, or AOE spam-able attacks that stagger and prevent healing. Additionally, any instance of the boss not attacking is hiding behind the horde and healing the boss, making it impossible to keep up with them all.

 The design choices of the boss encounter to make them feel like they are intentionally stacked with unfair elements to give the illusion of difficulty. Even after hours of trying to beat a boss, the only way to win was to focus on dealing damage as fast as possible and finishing with one health point left. 80% of the boss encounters in the game are like this, making it difficult to find a boss that is both fun and challenging. Ultimately, the boss encounters can make or break a player's opinion of the game. The question remains, are you and your friends up for the challenge of fighting against bosses that cheat?

When it comes to performance, Remnant from the Ashes on the Nintendo Switch is a mixed bag. On the one hand, I didn't experience any game-breaking bugs or crashes during my playthrough. Kudos to the devs for delivering a relatively stable experience. However, it's clear that some compromises had to be made to get this game running on the Switch.

 The frame rate is stable, but it's evident that some animations were sacrificed in the transition from 60 to 30 FPS. The textures are low resolution both in handheld and TV mode, which can be a bit of a downer if you're used to playing on other platforms. But the real kick in the pants is the screen tearing. Holy mother of god, it's like watching an earthquake in action every time you pan the camera horizontally.

 Despite all this, I have to say that Remnant from the Ashes is still one of the better Switch ports out there. Sure, there are some noticeable drawbacks, but they don't detract from the overall experience too much. And let's be honest, if you're playing on a Switch, you know what you're getting into. All things considered, the sacrifices made to get this game running on the platform are acceptable and don't detract from the overall experience.

In conclusion, Remnant from the Ashes is a game that hits all the right notes when it comes to gameplay but lacks an identity of its own. While I thoroughly enjoyed playing the game, the boss fights were a massive roadblock that left me feeling like I was banging my head against a wall of bullshit. The story was forgettable at best, and the game's design felt like a hodgepodge of elements from other popular games. However, if you're looking for a good third-person shooter or a soul-like experience, this game is worth the price of admission. Despite its flaws, Remnant From the Ashes receives the Anus Seal of Approval, or in simpler terms, a rating of Hot Shit.

The transcript is from a court hearing regarding a request for a clarification about a restraining order and visitation rights of a child. Mr. Ralph, the father, complied with the conditions set in the order, including attending anger management. He requested permission to take personal photos of his son during visitations, but the mother disagreed. The judge sought to clarify whether the provision prohibiting posting photos online also covers allowing a third party to post them. Mr. Ralph agreed not to share the photos digitally or allow a third party to post them. The discussion centered on whether Mr. Ralph could take photos of his son during visitation and the conditions under which he could share them.

Faith has concerns about Ralph's past behavior and is hesitant to allow him to take pictures of their son. The judge suggests a compromise where Ralph is allowed to take a limited number of pictures during supervised visits, which Faith accepts. There is also a discussion about Ralph's mailing address, as he is living in Mexico and Faith is not comfortable without a way to send legal documents. Finally, the judge suggests that Ralph's attorney can accept service on his behalf. Ralph tries to interject and defend himself but is repeatedly told to be quiet by his attorney.

There was also a disagreement about the child's clothing, with the father objecting to the mother dressing the child in clothing with anti-him messages. The judge clarified that the child should not be dressed in any clothing with a particular statement on it during visitation, and all parties agreed to this. The next court hearing date is scheduled for March 17th at 9 AM for a case with multiple witnesses. Ethan Ralph is out of the country and will be allowed to appear via Zoom. The visitation schedule for the defendant is also discussed and will resume. Amanda Ralph who is also residing in Mexico will also be allowed to appear via Zoom. The hearing ends with the defendant apologizing for being loud during the hearing.

Judge: Faith Vickers, is she on Zoom.

Granger: Yes, both Mr. Ralph and Ms. Vickers are appearing on Zoom

Judge: Okay, and this is FL21-016680. Ms. Vickers, can you hear me? Will you respond?

Faith: Yes, your Honor, I can hear you.

Judge: Thank you. And Mr. Ralph, can you hear me?

Ralph: Uh, I can, your honor, can you hear me?

Judge: Yes, I just want to make sure that…

Ralph: yes, of course, I do this for a living I know ‘cause yeah you can hear me 

thank you go ahead.

Judge: Alright, and this is docket FL21-016680. There appears to be an issue, they are asking 

about a clarification. So let me just pull up my file. Give me one second. 

Ralph: Sure.

Judge: And is that on the restraining order. Is that what we’re looking at today?

Granger: Your Honor, it’s uh, I…I filed a Request for Order to allow…regarding the visitation. 

So…

Judge: Okay, so Mr. Ralph has an order for supervised visitation…

Granger: And I wanted a clarification for that. 

Judge: So let me just……so…so I’m looking at the restraining order 

from March 2nd, 2022 according to my notes and there is also a stipulation…

Granger: Yes…

Judge: An agreement filed, uhm, September 12th, 2022.

Granger: Yes.

Judge: Perfect. And I see that…okay, I have that before me. So which provision is it we’re 

looking at?

Granger: Well, there was no…there was no, uh, there was no provision regarding that…so Mr. 

Ralph has complied with all the conditions or the order regarding the visitation, so he’s 

attended the anger management and uh, he’s…you know…etcetera etcetera…you know 

um…paragraph 16, both parties shall refrain…oh wait, excuse me…oh, yes, 16. At the last 

sentence, father is to refrain from posting pictures of the child online, or, hold on…so it’s page 2 

of the stip.

Judge: Okay

Granger: Yes, so Father agrees to refrain from posting pictures of the child online, but he wants 

to take photos of his son during the visitations just for his personal viewing. Um, that was not 

banned in the stipulation, but mother does not agree, but father wanted to come back to court 

to ask the court to make that an order that he be allowed to take photos of his son Xander but 

he agrees to not post them online.

Judge: And my question is, does this cover more than him? That he physically would not cause 

to happen but that he would not allow an agent of his, somebody…in other words, I don’t want 

him to be prohibited from posting but then tell you to go ahead and post them.

Granger: I think father would have to agree to that…

Ralph: I would agree. No offense, I didn’t want to interrupt, I would readily 

agree to no agent of mine or anyone on my behalf or anybody besides me even having the 

pictures you know I just want to show them to my uncle show my few family that are left most 

of my family unfortunately passed away and so uh it’s kind of nice to have a picture of my son 

and also just to remember him by I live across the globe and I fly in and see him whenever I can 

you know every other month or whatever it is, uh and so yea it kinda you know that’s that’s my 

reasoning behind it but yeah I would readily agree to no third agent, uhm, posting it as well.

Judge: And…

Ralph: And they’ll be taken at the center

Granger: The problem is that you have to agree not to share 

them, because if you share them then you don’t necessarily have control…

Ralph: Well, if I have to absolutely agree not to share the photos if that’s 

what the stipulation is, I’m fine with that. When I meant share them I didn’t mean like send 

them to my uncle or whatever, I meant like I’m in the house and I say here’s my son

an invisible phone in his hand to the camera to demonstrate> you know, of him not like send 

him the file documents but yeah I understand what’s been said but really it’s mostly I don’t get 

to see my son that much. I didn’t get to see him for well over a year after his birth and uhhhh, 

just now getting to know him basically uh and yea I, I would really think that…

Granger: Well, I think it’s…if we had an agreement that you weren’t…you didn’t share the file 

digitally online, that would solve the problem.

Judge: Yeah, he could show them, but not allow people to photograph them or otherwise…

Ralph: Right.

Judge: …keep a copy of the photo. But, he may visually allow people to enjoy it. But not copy it. 

Or disseminate it.

Judge: Yes?

Faith: Sorry, I just want to speak here. 

Judge: Yes.

Faith: Um, the reason why photos are an issue right now is because the visitation itself, Parent

Time, in uh, um, Loomis has a rule that both parties uh, or both parents have to consent to 

photos being taken. I do not wish to consent to this for a number of reasons that I can share 

with you if you’d like. Um, but that is my reasoning why I didn’t’ want to consent to photos 

being taken. I understand…

Judge: Why don’t you share your reasons.

Faith:

Granger: to clarify, I make if there was a court order the facility would, the issue is there wasn’t 

a court order so the facility wanted the parties to come to a mutual agreement, which Ms. 

Vickers for the reasons that she’s just going to state wouldn’t do. I just wanted to make that 

prior clarification.

Judge: Yes.

Faith: Um, so, there is a history between me and Mr. Ralph where he has a past of uploading 

private material whether it be through other parties or even without any intention of his own, 

sharing with other people that has been made public, um, he’s convicted of dissemination of 

images or more commonly known as Revenge Porn against me, and there have been previous 

issues of my son being uploaded online by Mr. Ralph himself and third parties…

Ralph: That’s not true.

Faith: …that does not make me feel comfortable…

Ralph: That’s not true.

Faith: …consenting to…

Judge: Hold on. do not argue with one another. I’m just hearing her statement.

Ralph: Can I have a statement afterwards to respond to this? Because:

Granger: Mr. Ralph! Hold on. You have an attorney, so just please be quiet until asked 

to speak, okay?

Faith: I’m sorry, your honor, but those are my reasons and I do have a line of questioning for 

Mr. Ralph if I can ask those when you’re ready, as I did subpoena him through his attorney.

Judge: This is not the date for the hearing. If you need a hearing on this, that’s fine. If we’re just 

going to do it listening to the moving papers and arguments, then I would do that today. 

Faith: Okay.

Judge: And I’m just going to throw out one settlement thing and that is um, that Mr. Ralph 

would periodically be allowed to take photos at parenting time. You would have an opportunity 

to review those before he was allowed to keep them. I’m not sure how practically that would 

happen, but you might have someone take a picture of him holding his son or playing with his 

son at Parenting Time. We could limit the pictures to like, three and have them reviewed for 

appropriateness by someone at Parenting Time and by you, and you would be allowed to 

maintain those. But he is not to disseminate them and he is not to publish them uh to other 

people to disseminate. 

Faith: Okay, that does seem like a fair compromise to me.

Judge: It would need some wording, but are you both sorta okay with that?

Ralph: Okay but I would still like to respond to some of what was said…

Granger: NO!

Ralph: I’m gonna resist. I’m gonna resist. In the interest of just like let’s keeping it, you know, 

let’s keep it above board because I feel like a lot of stuff was misrepresented, uh, in that last 

paragraph. 

Granger: Ok, Mr. Ralph, we’re really just here about visiting your son. Okay, so…

Ralph: I understand, I understand, I’m just saying it’s, it’s tough to hear that and 

then not get to say anything okay but I agree and I take that as that’s all I wanted was a chance 

to have some pictures with my son to you know remember him by so I feel like that’s a win for 

me so I don’t have any problem with that at all.

Judge: And, okay, and by “appropriateness” I’m going to let the parties work on defining that. 

That would be the son being fully clothes being engaged in appropriate childhood play…

Ralph: Like yeah, just playing around.

Judge: No bathroom pictures.

Ralph: No. No. No.

Judge: The photos are to be taken during supervised visitation.

Ralph: By the way, there’s reports on the supervised visitation and they both say they went well 

and even, you know, Faith here, admits that in her court filings that those supervised visitations 

went well for both parties. She said that in her court filings so…

Judge: So Mr. Ralph is visiting how often right now?

Granger: Mr. Ralph hasn’t been visiting since…

Faith: October

Granger: October

Ralph: Since we had this dispute…yeah.

Granger: The order is for, up to, two times a month.

Judge: Right

Ralph: Yeah, it’s two times, two days, per month and I was 

gonna combine a three-day visit in November but then we got into this dispute and I just 

decided that it would be better to settle it in the court early on because it is kinda important to 

me honestly that I don’t get to see him as much as she does…you know…

Granger: Mr. Raph! Mr. Ralph! That’s enough, okay? Be quiet. Another issue was that he had 

agreed that he would provide her with his mailing address. But he’s now not living in the United 

States. He’s moving around. Since it’s supervised visitation only we would ask that that 

particular term be deleted.

Faith: Um, sorry, um I would not feel comfortable with that just because considering again, Mr. 

Ralph’s past in avoiding service and things like that. I don’t feel comfortable not having a way to 

send legal documents and things like that. The last address he gave me he did not have 

permission to use apparently, as I have come to learn, so I don’t feel comfortable with that.

Ralph: Wait, what? Sorry, I didn’t hear the last part of what she said if someone else wants to 

repeat it. But yeah, I live in Mexico…

Granger: Mr. Ralph. Mr. Ralph. Could you please just be quiet. That’s kinda the problem with 

Zoom. Okay. But you need to please be quiet at the moment.

Judge: So, Ms. Granger, as long as you are retained to represent him would you accept service 

on his behalf in lieu of a mailing address provided by him? 

Granger: As long as I’m retained to represent him, yes. 

Judge: And Mr. Ralph, if for some reason Ms. Granger substitutes out and you are without 

council as part of that substitution you would have to provide a mailing address for service 

purposes as well as your physical location by city and country. 

Ralph: Uh, I don’t feel comfortable giving her and her father my physical address especially 

because they’ve given it away online before and caused me swattings and had people attack 

me at my house and had all kinds of things happen to me and they’ve drummed up a hate mob 

against me online and that’s why I don’t feel comfortable with them having my address it’s not 

me trying to you know give flack to the court right like this is a real issues that’s actually 

happened to me right but…

Granger: Mr. Ralph would you agree to provide an address?

Faith: Your honor there is not evidence to justify anything that Mr. Ralph has said. I have 

personally never posted any of his private information and I will agree on paper to never share 

private information regarding addresses. 

Granger: Ok. I think the problem would be solved if you could provide an address where you 

could be served.

Ralph: I can provide a PO Box. 

Faith: From what I understand a PO Box cannot be proper service.

Faith: I’m not entirely sure myself.

Ralph: *inaudible* not even trying to hide from service.

Judge: Hold on. One at a time.

Faith: Sorry, your honor. Again, that’s just my understanding, I’m not entirely sure. Um, but yes, 

if it’s just an address for service, I’m okay with that. Again, it just needs to be a mailing address. 

Judge: There would be a stipulation that he provide an address for service?

Faith: Yes.

Ralph: Mailing address. 

Granger: Are you okay with that, Mr. Ralph?

Ralph: Mailing address, yes. 

Granger: Okay. 

Judge: And Ms. Vickers, generally when council is retained you would be providing council with 

any of that whatever you were serving and you would see if they would accept service at that 

time. 

Granger: And we have been in communication about that and she has, we have figured that 

out.

Faith: Yeah. 

Judge: Okay, so I believe we’ve done that.

Granger: Okay, so we have an agreement there, and I’ll prepare the findings and order after 

hearing regarding the photos during the visit and the address for service. 

Judge: Okay, and I would like to, just to reiterate, to define for whatever supervised visitation 

center it is, to take up to 3 photographs that the facility may review those for appropriateness, 

um, that the child is fully clothed and engaged in play or interacting with father does not 

contain anything where the child is changing diapers, going to the bathroom uh, running 

around nude or anything else that little kids might do. So, it would be something that would be 

later embarrassing to the child. 

Faith: Can I have a bit more…

Ralph: I want to ask something your honor. She has actually dressed my 

child…our child…in memes meant to insult me, uh, corn memes she sent him dressed like that 

to the uh…

Judge: She what?

Ralph: yeah I know it’s hard to explain, but she’s used internet memes in order to try and troll 

me by dressing my son in basically anti-me regalia. And I would ask that that be disallowed by 

the court and that she be admonished quite frankly.

Faith: Uh, your honor, the outfit that he is referring to is a onesie is a corn graphic that says 

“Awe Shucks.”

Ralph: And you know good and well there’s a whole corn *inaudible* on Kiwifarms that you 

stoked, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Judge: I’m not sure going on…

Ralph: I would ask that she be…

Granger: Mr. Ralph. Mr. Ralph. We’re kinda getting out in the weeds a little bit. We’re not here 

today for that purpose.

Faith: But, before, I was going to ask for clarification with the photos.

*Lots of background noise from other parties. Judge stops everyone to sort it out*

Judge: Go ahead mother, again, Ms. Vickers.

Faith: Sorry, that I was just asking for clarification when it came to the photos, just that I was 

able to review them um, after they were taken, um, that’s the only thing I was asking 

clarification for.

Judge: I think that’s...I think what…I think that gets kinda cumbersome.

Faith: Okay. 

Judge: I’d like to just define it enough that and you can give Ms. Granger your input to provide 

any other strictures, okay?

Faith: Okay. Thank you.

Ralph: Well, your honor…

Granger: Wait! Wait!

Granger: I think we…I think I…

Ralph: it says I have to get the photos like, what if she just says…

Granger: Ethan! Ethan! Please, be quiet right now. I think the facility was going to approve for 

appropriateness. 

Ralph: Okay. Okay. 

Judge: He’s going to take them and before he leaves if there’s one they feel is inappropriate, 

that might embarrass the child down the line that he would delete it in front of them before he 

left, so it’s instant. 

Ralph: Okay, okay. I agree. 

Faith: Okay, thank you for that clarification. 

Granger: Okay. I’m confident that none of the photos will be inappropriate but we’ll have this 

language in there…

Ralph: Yes, I agree, I think it makes sense. Yeah…you’re right. 

Judge: There should be one more that no one should dress the child during visitation or any 

visitation that has any particular statement on his clothing. 

Ralph: Thank you for that. 

Judge: Just something like blue jeans and a red tee shirt and I think we’re okay.

Ralph: I think we’re okay, thank you for that, your honor. 

Judge: And that would mean mother doesn’t bring him in anything, father doesn’t add or 

subtract anything or change anything.

Faith: Okay, I was just asking because that might be a little confusing because I’m not quite sure 

what he’s referencing when it comes to…

Ralph: *mumbles incoherently*

Faith: I’m just confused to what images aren’t allowed so it can be clarified in the stipulation 

and the reasoning for it so that way I have just a guideline what I can and can’t…

Judge: No tee shirt that has sayings on it.

Faith: Okay, so no graphic designs.

Judge: Right.

Faith: Okay. Thank you.

Judge: And that’s either way.

Ralph: So just a regular tee shirt, a solid colored tee shirt, just solid 

colored clothes, yes. Thank you for that, your honor.

Faith: Okay. Thank you.

Judge: I’m not going to pick the color, okay.

Ralph: Right, yeah that’s too much.

Judge: Sounds like jail. Okay?

Granger: Okay.

Judge: I think we got all of those for the clarification. There’s also an order to show cause for 

contempt, I believe. 

Granger: Yes. That’s Ms. Vickers’

Judge: Ms. Vickers has brought that and I believe this is the date and time that is set for the 

arraignment for that.

Faith: Yes.

Judge: And, did you receive a copy of that?

Granger: I did, and I filed a response.

Judge: Okay, and is time waived for the hearing?

Granger: Yes.

Judge: Okay, so give me a time estimate for the hearing.

Granger: Uhm, I would say, how many witnesses do you have, Ms. Vickers?

Faith: So far I have two witnesses I need to question and two declarations I’ve filed from 

witnesses. 

Granger: Okay, well the witnesses are going to have to testify, you can’t just rely on the 

declaration.

Faith: Sorry, I meant I have two to question, yes. 

Granger: So you have 4 witnesses or 2 witnesses?

Faith: Two witnesses.

Faith: Oh, I’m sorry. Four. Four witnesses.

Ralph: I don’t believe I’m supposed to testify in this hearing…I’m not sure, is that on record…?

Granger: Mr. Ralph, we can talk about this later. 

Ralph: Okay. Okay. Okay.

Granger: So, we have a couple of witnesses, so I’d say, 3 hours.

Judge: Okay, so would you like it sometime in March?

Granger: Uhm, that will be fine.

Judge: It looks like March 11th is available. March 17th is available. 

Granger: March 17th, in the morning?

Judge: It would be in the morning, yes.

Granger: Okay, if we can have that date, please.

Judge: Okay. Ms. Vickers, will that work for you?

Faith: Uh, yes. That will work for me.

Judge: Okay, so March 17, at 9AM. I’m going to give it a half day setting.

Granger: And I’m sorry, Mr. Ralph, are you available March 17th? 

Ralph: Uuuuhhhhmmm, lemme look and make sure, I should, you know I should be, I kinda set 

my own schedule, that’s a Friday yeah I’m available I’m…let’s just do it. 

Granger: And then, will he be allowed to appear by Zoom? 

Judge: I have no objection to that. I understand that he’s out of the country.

Ralph: I’m a resident of, of Mexico. And actual resident of the country of Mexico so…

Judge: So would you note that? That I’ve given him specific permission to do that. He 

does need to appear visually, not by phone.

Ralph: Sure. Right. Now in the interim we can go ahead and restart visits and stuff right. 

Granger: Your visitation hasn’t changed. 

Ralph: Right, I mean, we can, you know…

Granger: Yes. Yes. Resume the visitation.

Ralph: Okay, good. That’s great news.

Granger: And then we have another one, your Honor, Amanda Morris, who is also residing in 

Mexico. Can she appear by Zoom, too.

Judge: Yes, as long as it’s visual communication.

Ralph: Yeah. Okay. She had a declaration y’know.

Judge: Okay. Thank you. And Ms. Granger if you would prepare the *inaudible* for today.

Granger: I will. 

Faith: Thank you, your honor.

Ralph: Thank you your honor, also I just want to apologize for any uh I know I’m loud I’m used 

to a studio setup you know the Zoom kinda projects in loud to the courtroom so I’m sorry if I 

was overpowering sometimes with my voice.

Judge: That’s alright. 

Ralph: yea so I apologize anyway so…thank you. Have a good one.

Judge: Thank you. 

Ralph: alright, bye bye.

Recently, after literally over a year of claiming he was not a convicted sex offender, and that 'revenge porn' was "not a crime", convicted felon Ethan Ralph decided to change legal strategy on the whole matter.  Now he is making the claim that it was not a revenge porn issue, it was a copyright issue.  And because he believes he owns the copyright to the revenge porn he shared, ergo he is innocent.  Neither the court nor the law agreed with him in this.

Virginia is one of the many states in the United States that has enacted a law specifically addressing revenge porn. Virginia’s law, which was signed into law in 2014, makes it illegal to knowingly and intentionally distribute sexually explicit images of another person without their consent, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate that person. The law defines sexually explicit content as any image, photograph, film, or video that depicts a person who is nude or engaged in sexual activity, and where the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Under Virginia’s law, the distribution of revenge porn is considered a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. If the offender disseminates the images with the intent to extort or obtain something of value, or if the victim is a minor, the offense is elevated to a Class 6 felony, which carries a potential prison sentence of up to five years.

It's important to note that revenge porn is a violation of a person's privacy rights, rather than a copyright issue. Copyright law protects the rights of creators of original works, such as music, movies, books, and photographs. Revenge porn, on the other hand, involves the unauthorized distribution of images that depict an individual in a sexual manner without their consent. The distribution of these images without permission violates the individual's right to privacy and can have severe and lasting consequences for the victim, including emotional distress, loss of reputation, and even loss of employment opportunities.

Revenge porn is also often used as a tool for harassment and blackmail, as the distribution of these images can be used to exert power and control over the victim. This is why many states, including Virginia, have enacted laws specifically criminalizing the distribution of revenge porn. These laws recognize that this behavior is not only morally reprehensible but also has serious legal consequences.

In addition to criminal penalties, victims of revenge porn in Virginia may also pursue civil remedies, such as seeking a restraining order or filing a lawsuit against the person who distributed the images. They may also be able to recover damages for any harm suffered as a result of the distribution of the images.

And even if it were a copyright issue, Ethan Ralph is the last person in the world who a rational person would listen to about issues of copyright since he frequently abuses the DMCA system to flag down people he does not like.  On top of that he also frequently plays copyrighted materials on his shows without permission or authorization from the actual copyright holders, be it Tucker Carlson clips, bad rap music, or other content creators, some of which he has falsely flagged despite them falling within the 'Fair Use' exception.  And his lack of creativity does not just show in his blatant abuse and use of copyrighted materials on his show, but even the idea of revenge porn being a copyright issue is someone else's idea, albeit someone who might be equally as smart as Ralph, but neither are scoring over room temp on the IQ scale.  Meet proto-Ralph, Benjamin Jay Barber.

In December 2016, the first conviction for revenge porn in the state of Oregon was handed down. It involved a 31-year-old man, Benjamin Barber, who was sentenced to 6 months in jail and five years of probation for sharing intimate photos and videos of his ex-girlfriend without her consent.

The case began in June, when the victim contacted police after discovering that Barber had shared explicit images and videos of her with others. She told investigators that she had dated Barber for about a year, during which time they had taken intimate photos and videos together. After the relationship ended, she found out that Barber had shared the images with at least one other person, and possibly more.

Oregon's revenge porn law, which was enacted in 2015, makes it a crime to share intimate images of another person without their consent, with the intent to cause them harm or embarrassment. The law applies to images that were taken with the person's consent, as well as those taken without their knowledge or consent. In Barber's case, the prosecution argued that he had shared the images with the intent to harm his ex-girlfriend, and that he had done so despite knowing that she did not consent to the sharing.

At trial, the victim testified about the emotional toll that the sharing of the images had taken on her. She told the court that she felt violated and embarrassed and that she had suffered from anxiety and depression as a result of the incident. She also said that she had lost job opportunities and had been forced to move to a new city to escape the harassment and humiliation she experienced after the images were shared.

The defense argued that Barber had not intended to harm his ex-girlfriend, and that he had only shared the images because he was feeling lonely and wanted to reconnect with her. However, the jury ultimately found him guilty on all counts.

Barber's case is significant because it is the first revenge porn conviction in Oregon since the law was enacted. The case is also noteworthy because it reflects a growing trend across the country of lawmakers taking action to address the issue of revenge porn. As more and more states pass laws criminalizing the sharing of intimate images without consent, prosecutors are increasingly seeking to hold offenders accountable for their actions.

According to a report by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, as of 2021, 46 states and the District of Columbia have criminalized revenge porn in some form. In addition, several states have enacted laws that allow victims to sue their perpetrators for damages. These laws represent a significant step forward in the fight against revenge porn, which has become an increasingly common form of online harassment and abuse.

However, despite the progress that has been made, revenge porn remains a difficult crime to prosecute. In many cases, victims are reluctant to come forward out of fear of retaliation or further embarrassment. Even when cases do make it to court, it can be challenging to prove that the sharing of the images was done with malicious intent.

As the case of Benjamin Barber demonstrates, however, revenge porn can have serious consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator. For victims, the sharing of intimate images can cause lasting emotional and psychological damage, as well as financial and professional harm. For perpetrators, the act of sharing the images can result in criminal charges, jail time, and significant legal and financial penalties.

In conclusion, revenge porn is a serious violation of an individual's privacy rights and can have lasting consequences on the victim's emotional and professional well-being. Many states have enacted laws specifically addressing revenge porn, including Virginia and Oregon, which make it illegal to distribute sexually explicit images of another person without their consent. In Virginia, revenge porn is considered a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine, while in Oregon, the penalty can include a prison sentence of up to 13 months and five years of probation. It's important to note that revenge porn is not a copyright issue and that laws are recognizing this behavior's serious legal and moral implications.  Further still, Ralph has already been convicted of Revenge Porn, and he is already a convicted sex offender from it, so not only is this legal strategy bogus, but also like Amanda Ralphs's fictitious declarations in recent court filings, it's also irrelevant.