Skip to main content

Ivan Ramos Has Been Indicted For Allegedly Assaulting A Woman In The West Village Last Month

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictment of IVAN RAMOS, 22, for violently sexually assaulting a woman on Perry Street in the West Village last month. RAMOS is charged with Rape in the First Degree, Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree, and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree.[1]

“The defendant savagely preyed on a vulnerable victim while posing as someone who wanted to help her,” said District Attorney Vance. “Our Sex Crimes Unit is committed to investigating cases of sexual assault in Manhattan and taking the depraved perpetrators, like this defendant, off our streets.”

According to documents filed in court and statements made on the record, at approximately 6 a.m. on April 15, 2012, RAMOS approached a 29-year-old woman in the West Village. Earlier, the woman had lost some of her property, including her cell phone and cash from her wallet. RAMOS falsely identified himself as a member of Neighborhood Watch, and convinced the woman to give him her ATM card so he could help her withdraw cash to pay for a taxi. After the defendant failed to do so, she asked him to take her to the nearest police precinct. Instead, RAMOS led her to a dark and deserted exterior stairwell of a building on Perry Street, where, for approximately fifteen minutes, he violently sexually assaulted her.

Assistant District Attorney Craig Ortner is prosecuting the case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorneys Martha Bashford, Chief of the Sex Crimes Unit, Audrey Moore, Chief of the Special Victims Bureau, and Kerry O’Connell, Chief of Trial Bureau 80.

Defendant Information:

IVAN RAMOS, D.O.B. 04/13/1990

Brooklyn, NY

Charges:

Rape in the First Degree, a class B felony, two counts
Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree, a class B felony, three counts
Assault in the Second Degree, a class D felony, one count
Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree, a class E felony, one count
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more