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

[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.

Jeff: As an appellate lawyer, I have two observations. Your understanding of the holding of the case is close enough to be considered accurate in layman's terms. Your terminology is anything but neutral.
As a DCUMer, I would have preferred you started a new thread here (and link the old threads) but I understand it's your show.

[Anonymous]

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.

Jeff: As an appellate lawyer, I have two observations. Your understanding of the holding of the case is close enough to be considered accurate in layman's terms. Your terminology is anything but neutral.
As a DCUMer, I would have preferred you started a new thread here (and link the old threads) but I understand it's your show.

Not to mention that the father (in his 60s) has custody of the two girls and raises them alone. Imagine how hard it would be to get that, and what the other side must look like.

To pp - Jeff has a biased interest in this case. Trust me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He was fired. Don't know about other job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How was DCUM cited in a lawsuit if it's anonymous? Did posts on DCUM effect anything in the lawsuit ?

As part of his campaign against his wife and her boyfriend psychologist, the dad hired a PR firm to spread the word about the embarrassing materials in his complaint. The PR work included posting stuff here on DCUM. The dad admitted this in deposition, and it was discussed in one of the underlying court documents. The appeals ruling refers to it obliquely without citing DCUM directly. IIRC, Jeff also spotted and named the PR firm when it was planting posts stuff here.

[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.

Jeff: As an appellate lawyer, I have two observations. Your understanding of the holding of the case is close enough to be considered accurate in layman's terms. Your terminology is anything but neutral.
As a DCUMer, I would have preferred you started a new thread here (and link the old threads) but I understand it's your show.

If you are bothered by the word "aggrieved", I described him in the way that he apparently sees himself, not necessarily how I see him. Fair enough about starting a new thread, but DCUMers are of two very distinct minds in that regard.

[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.

Jeff: As an appellate lawyer, I have two observations. Your understanding of the holding of the case is close enough to be considered accurate in layman's terms. Your terminology is anything but neutral.
As a DCUMer, I would have preferred you started a new thread here (and link the old threads) but I understand it's your show.

If you are bothered by the word "aggrieved", I described him in the way that he apparently sees himself, not necessarily how I see him. Fair enough about starting a new thread, but DCUMers are of two very distinct minds in that regard.

There's a lot more to be bothered by than your use of that word. Plenty of us are seeing it.

[jsteele]

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

The father started one or more threads here bashing the mother, psychologist, and school. These threads were anonymous and disparaged identifiable individuals. According to documents filed in the case, the father first lied about being the author of the posts, but later admitted it. Copies of the thread(s) (I don't remember if there were more than one) were included with the filings.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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

The father started one or more threads here bashing the mother, psychologist, and school. These threads were anonymous and disparaged identifiable individuals. According to documents filed in the case, the father first lied about being the author of the posts, but later admitted it. Copies of the thread(s) (I don't remember if there were more than one) were included with the filings.

And the posts earlier in this same thread, by the mother, disparaging the father? No comment on those?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

The father started one or more threads here bashing the mother, psychologist, and school. These threads were anonymous and disparaged identifiable individuals. According to documents filed in the case, the father first lied about being the author of the posts, but later admitted it. Copies of the thread(s) (I don't remember if there were more than one) were included with the filings.

And the posts earlier in this same thread, by the mother, disparaging the father? No comment on those?

Which posts are those? Can you identify them? Or are you just speculating? I've never seen reference in any of the court documents to the mother posting here (although it wouldn't surprise me).

Are you the father? The court documents make it pretty clear he's done some pretty terrible things. Why are you so intent on defending someone like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

The father started one or more threads here bashing the mother, psychologist, and school. These threads were anonymous and disparaged identifiable individuals. According to documents filed in the case, the father first lied about being the author of the posts, but later admitted it. Copies of the thread(s) (I don't remember if there were more than one) were included with the filings.

And the posts earlier in this same thread, by the mother, disparaging the father? No comment on those?

Which posts are those? Can you identify them? Or are you just speculating? I've never seen reference in any of the court documents to the mother posting here (although it wouldn't surprise me).

Are you the father? The court documents make it pretty clear he's done some pretty terrible things. Why are you so intent on defending someone like that?

I don't know either the parents personally. I do know the girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

The father started one or more threads here bashing the mother, psychologist, and school. These threads were anonymous and disparaged identifiable individuals. According to documents filed in the case, the father first lied about being the author of the posts, but later admitted it. Copies of the thread(s) (I don't remember if there were more than one) were included with the filings.

And the posts earlier in this same thread, by the mother, disparaging the father? No comment on those?

Which posts are those? Can you identify them? Or are you just speculating? I've never seen reference in any of the court documents to the mother posting here (although it wouldn't surprise me).

Are you the father? The court documents make it pretty clear he's done some pretty terrible things. Why are you so intent on defending someone like that?

Also, unless you know people personally, I would not comment on their character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is bullshit. Maybe Beauvoir should be shut down for having a predator in its presence who is/was on the FBI's most wanted list.

why are those two things mutually exclusive? If there is abuse at either one then there should be consequences

[Anonymous]

How do I get a job anonymously muckraking on the internet for a PR firm? Sounds like something I could do easily around school schedules, part time, from home?

[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.

Jeff: As an appellate lawyer, I have two observations. Your understanding of the holding of the case is close enough to be considered accurate in layman's terms. Your terminology is anything but neutral.
As a DCUMer, I would have preferred you started a new thread here (and link the old threads) but I understand it's your show.

If you are bothered by the word "aggrieved", I described him in the way that he apparently sees himself, not necessarily how I see him. Fair enough about starting a new thread, but DCUMers are of two very distinct minds in that regard.

I really don't give two shits one way or the other. I'm not bothered by anything here. As I said, I was making two observations, gleaned from my (20 years') experience as an appellate lawyer. Your post showed a decent understanding of the holding of the case and then you sprinkled on a little bias. It's fine. Most people don't understand the nuances involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was DCUM cited in a lawsuit if it's anonymous? Did posts on DCUM effect anything in the lawsuit ?

As part of his campaign against his wife and her boyfriend psychologist, the dad hired a PR firm to spread the word about the embarrassing materials in his complaint. The PR work included posting stuff here on DCUM. The dad admitted this in deposition, and it was discussed in one of the underlying court documents. The appeals ruling refers to it obliquely without citing DCUM directly. IIRC, Jeff also spotted and named the PR firm when it was planting posts stuff here.

Marrying an asshoke lawyer & having kids with him seems like a great idea.