What is going on at Sidwell is NOT just a “sex scandal”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

Agree!! Wtf, Jeff!?!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel confident trying to explain the document which reports an important ruling in the case. My very layman understanding which may be 180 degrees from reality is that a lower court's summary judgement was upheld on appeal in all but two cases. As a result, the former school psychologist's case against the aggrieved father can now proceed.

Since when is it your place to post this? Rumors that you're in with people involved in the case seem to be true?

[Anonymous]

I thought anybody is allowed to post. Why the sting?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel confident trying to explain the document which reports an important ruling in the case. My very layman understanding which may be 180 degrees from reality is that a lower court's summary judgement was upheld on appeal in all but two cases. As a result, the former school psychologist's case against the aggrieved father can now proceed.

Since when is it your place to post this? Rumors that you're in with people involved in the case seem to be true?

What a strange reaction. I own this website. Since when is it your place to question what I can do on it?

I am really surprised at the response to my post, but just to be clear, this topic has been the subject of many very long threads over the course of a few years. DCUM was mentioned in the court filings and posts on the site were part of the litigation. I assumed that there would be interest in the latest development. If you aren't interested, hopefully you can find another thread that is more to your liking.

[Anonymous]

I think there is interest and thank you for the update link. I also think the poster who attacked you was interested in doing only that, on any basis and given half the chance to do so.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel confident trying to explain the document which reports an important ruling in the case. My very layman understanding which may be 180 degrees from reality is that a lower court's summary judgement was upheld on appeal in all but two cases. As a result, the former school psychologist's case against the aggrieved father can now proceed.

Since when is it your place to post this? Rumors that you're in with people involved in the case seem to be true?

What a strange reaction. I own this website. Since when is it your place to question what I can do on it?

I am really surprised at the response to my post, but just to be clear, this topic has been the subject of many very long threads over the course of a few years. DCUM was mentioned in the court filings and posts on the site were part of the litigation. I assumed that there would be interest in the latest development. If you aren't interested, hopefully you can find another thread that is more to your liking.

Do you often provide random updates on old cases that have nothing to do with you personally? Just seems out of character. Especially because there are individuals - including children - easily identifiable. You tend to delete threads that go down that road (the recent one attacking a female housewife/blogger, for example). Unless of course there's something else going on...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel confident trying to explain the document which reports an important ruling in the case. My very layman understanding which may be 180 degrees from reality is that a lower court's summary judgement was upheld on appeal in all but two cases. As a result, the former school psychologist's case against the aggrieved father can now proceed.

Since when is it your place to post this? Rumors that you're in with people involved in the case seem to be true?

What a strange reaction. I own this website. Since when is it your place to question what I can do on it?

I am really surprised at the response to my post, but just to be clear, this topic has been the subject of many very long threads over the course of a few years. DCUM was mentioned in the court filings and posts on the site were part of the litigation. I assumed that there would be interest in the latest development. If you aren't interested, hopefully you can find another thread that is more to your liking.

Do you often provide random updates on old cases that have nothing to do with you personally? Just seems out of character. Especially because there are individuals - including children - easily identifiable. You tend to delete threads that go down that road (the recent one attacking a female housewife/blogger, for example). Unless of course there's something else going on...

Yes, I often provide updates (the randomness of which is debatable) to issues that have been subject to significant discussion on DCUM. Are you seriously not aware of the discussion of this case that has occurred here? There have probably been a half dozen threads that stretched to the teens in pages. One such thread was on my list of most popular one year. And, again, DCUM was actually brought up in the litigation as some of the drama occurred here.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel confident trying to explain the document which reports an important ruling in the case. My very layman understanding which may be 180 degrees from reality is that a lower court's summary judgement was upheld on appeal in all but two cases. As a result, the former school psychologist's case against the aggrieved father can now proceed.

Since when is it your place to post this? Rumors that you're in with people involved in the case seem to be true?

What a strange reaction. I own this website. Since when is it your place to question what I can do on it?

I am really surprised at the response to my post, but just to be clear, this topic has been the subject of many very long threads over the course of a few years. DCUM was mentioned in the court filings and posts on the site were part of the litigation. I assumed that there would be interest in the latest development. If you aren't interested, hopefully you can find another thread that is more to your liking.

Do you often provide random updates on old cases that have nothing to do with you personally? Just seems out of character. Especially because there are individuals - including children - easily identifiable. You tend to delete threads that go down that road (the recent one attacking a female housewife/blogger, for example). Unless of course there's something else going on...

Yes, I often provide updates (the randomness of which is debatable) to issues that have been subject to significant discussion on DCUM. Are you seriously not aware of the discussion of this case that has occurred here? There have probably been a half dozen threads that stretched to the teens in pages. One such thread was on my list of most popular one year. And, again, DCUM was actually brought up in the litigation as some of the drama occurred here.

I have not actively followed the case on here. That said, I do know there are actively identifiable children involved. Those children are innocent preteens and any publicity surrounding this case could hurt them. So why revive the situation? And why not flag this thread as you have others that identify innocent (or even not innocent) people?

[Anonymous]

Wondered what was going on--see jobs in my field open there every year and have thought about applying. Yikes, no wonder they all leave every year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondered what was going on--see jobs in my field open there every year and have thought about applying. Yikes, no wonder they all leave every year!

Odd reaction. My read of the ruling is that it was a clear case of a vindictive divorced dad who used his considerable wealth to try to ruin the lives of several people with bad publicity and vexatious litigation. If anything, the school was a victim of his vindictive campaign. The court tossed his claims out and allowed one of his targets (the psychologist) to reverse sue him for the injury the psychologist suffered.

[Anonymous]

The divorced dad's attorney is the top litigator in DC! Ive seen that man argue in front of the supreme court. The dad in this case must be paying a fortune to embarrass his ex wife.

[Anonymous]

Poor child . . .

[Anonymous]

Yes, I agree. For the sake of the child let's let this thread die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel confident trying to explain the document which reports an important ruling in the case. My very layman understanding which may be 180 degrees from reality is that a lower court's summary judgement was upheld on appeal in all but two cases. As a result, the former school psychologist's case against the aggrieved father can now proceed.

Since when is it your place to post this? Rumors that you're in with people involved in the case seem to be true?

What a strange reaction. I own this website. Since when is it your place to question what I can do on it?

I am really surprised at the response to my post, but just to be clear, this topic has been the subject of many very long threads over the course of a few years. DCUM was mentioned in the court filings and posts on the site were part of the litigation. I assumed that there would be interest in the latest development. If you aren't interested, hopefully you can find another thread that is more to your liking.

Do you often provide random updates on old cases that have nothing to do with you personally? Just seems out of character. Especially because there are individuals - including children - easily identifiable. You tend to delete threads that go down that road (the recent one attacking a female housewife/blogger, for example). Unless of course there's something else going on...

I'm an outside person and I don't find any children to be easily identifiable. That's a strange assumption.
They are not identified by name in any documents.

Also -How was DCUM cited in a lawsuit if it's anonymous? Did posts on DCUM effect anything in the lawsuit ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is interest and thank you for the update link. I also think the poster who attacked you was interested in doing only that, on any basis and given half the chance to do so.

What happened to the school employee? Did he find another job?
Was he fired?