Rachel Carson Lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure that this was not consensual sex? Now, if it indeed was not, then it seems a pretty clear cut case, and the offenders will have to pay a lot of money. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be an open and shut suit.

The victim shaming on display here is shameful.

Are you connected with the case somehow? Or just passing judgement based on your interpretation of the information?

I'm honestly beginning to think that someone connected to the case is blitzing posts on social media. Who knows. It might help, I suppose.

On a site primarily visited by women, you’re surprised that a girl subjected to repeated sexual harassment and assault that went largely ignored by school officials cuts a sympathetic figure?

It’s far more likely that you have a personal connection with one of the defendants, or are worried that your ill-mannered son might some day be called out for his boorishness.

+1. I wasn’t that other poster and completely am disgusted. So much venom towards a child victim. It makes me sick to read.

+2. When they say “we don’t really know all the facts,” what they are really doing is calling a victim of sexual assault a liar. It’s sickening.

This post has LITERALLY only shared one side of the story… and when some asks for more info, they’re accused of victim shaming. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure that this was not consensual sex? Now, if it indeed was not, then it seems a pretty clear cut case, and the offenders will have to pay a lot of money. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be an open and shut suit.

The victim shaming on display here is shameful.

Are you connected with the case somehow? Or just passing judgement based on your interpretation of the information?

I'm honestly beginning to think that someone connected to the case is blitzing posts on social media. Who knows. It might help, I suppose.

On a site primarily visited by women, you’re surprised that a girl subjected to repeated sexual harassment and assault that went largely ignored by school officials cuts a sympathetic figure?

It’s far more likely that you have a personal connection with one of the defendants, or are worried that your ill-mannered son might some day be called out for his boorishness.

+1. I wasn’t that other poster and completely am disgusted. So much venom towards a child victim. It makes me sick to read.

+2. When they say “we don’t really know all the facts,” what they are really doing is calling a victim of sexual assault a liar. It’s sickening.

This post has LITERALLY only shared one side of the story… and when some asks for more info, they’re accused of victim shaming. Interesting.

+1 it’s got to be someone connected to the defendant. There’s some kind of vendetta against Carson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure that this was not consensual sex? Now, if it indeed was not, then it seems a pretty clear cut case, and the offenders will have to pay a lot of money. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be an open and shut suit.

The victim shaming on display here is shameful.

Are you connected with the case somehow? Or just passing judgement based on your interpretation of the information?

I'm honestly beginning to think that someone connected to the case is blitzing posts on social media. Who knows. It might help, I suppose.

On a site primarily visited by women, you’re surprised that a girl subjected to repeated sexual harassment and assault that went largely ignored by school officials cuts a sympathetic figure?

It’s far more likely that you have a personal connection with one of the defendants, or are worried that your ill-mannered son might some day be called out for his boorishness.

+1. I wasn’t that other poster and completely am disgusted. So much venom towards a child victim. It makes me sick to read.

+2. When they say “we don’t really know all the facts,” what they are really doing is calling a victim of sexual assault a liar. It’s sickening.

This post has LITERALLY only shared one side of the story… and when some asks for more info, they’re accused of victim shaming. Interesting.

+1 it’s got to be someone connected to the defendant. There’s some kind of vendetta against Carson.

Kind of a glaring Freudian slip there on your part (referring to the victim, who is the plaintiff, as the “defendant” instead).

But, yeah, no victim blaming or shaming going on there at all, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure that this was not consensual sex? Now, if it indeed was not, then it seems a pretty clear cut case, and the offenders will have to pay a lot of money. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be an open and shut suit.

The victim shaming on display here is shameful.

Are you connected with the case somehow? Or just passing judgement based on your interpretation of the information?

I'm honestly beginning to think that someone connected to the case is blitzing posts on social media. Who knows. It might help, I suppose.

On a site primarily visited by women, you’re surprised that a girl subjected to repeated sexual harassment and assault that went largely ignored by school officials cuts a sympathetic figure?

It’s far more likely that you have a personal connection with one of the defendants, or are worried that your ill-mannered son might some day be called out for his boorishness.

+1. I wasn’t that other poster and completely am disgusted. So much venom towards a child victim. It makes me sick to read.

+2. When they say “we don’t really know all the facts,” what they are really doing is calling a victim of sexual assault a liar. It’s sickening.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure that this was not consensual sex? Now, if it indeed was not, then it seems a pretty clear cut case, and the offenders will have to pay a lot of money. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be an open and shut suit.

The victim shaming on display here is shameful.

Are you connected with the case somehow? Or just passing judgement based on your interpretation of the information?

I'm honestly beginning to think that someone connected to the case is blitzing posts on social media. Who knows. It might help, I suppose.

On a site primarily visited by women, you’re surprised that a girl subjected to repeated sexual harassment and assault that went largely ignored by school officials cuts a sympathetic figure?

It’s far more likely that you have a personal connection with one of the defendants, or are worried that your ill-mannered son might some day be called out for his boorishness.

+1. I wasn’t that other poster and completely am disgusted. So much venom towards a child victim. It makes me sick to read.

+2. When they say “we don’t really know all the facts,” what they are really doing is calling a victim of sexual assault a liar. It’s sickening.

This post has LITERALLY only shared one side of the story… and when some asks for more info, they’re accused of victim shaming. Interesting.

+1 it’s got to be someone connected to the defendant. There’s some kind of vendetta against Carson.

Kind of a glaring Freudian slip there on your part (referring to the victim, who is the plaintiff, as the “defendant” instead).

But, yeah, no victim blaming or shaming going on there at all, right?

PP, I think you’ve lost it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure that this was not consensual sex? Now, if it indeed was not, then it seems a pretty clear cut case, and the offenders will have to pay a lot of money. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be an open and shut suit.

The victim shaming on display here is shameful.

Are you connected with the case somehow? Or just passing judgement based on your interpretation of the information?

I'm honestly beginning to think that someone connected to the case is blitzing posts on social media. Who knows. It might help, I suppose.

On a site primarily visited by women, you’re surprised that a girl subjected to repeated sexual harassment and assault that went largely ignored by school officials cuts a sympathetic figure?

It’s far more likely that you have a personal connection with one of the defendants, or are worried that your ill-mannered son might some day be called out for his boorishness.

+1. I wasn’t that other poster and completely am disgusted. So much venom towards a child victim. It makes me sick to read.

+2. When they say “we don’t really know all the facts,” what they are really doing is calling a victim of sexual assault a liar. It’s sickening.

This post has LITERALLY only shared one side of the story… and when some asks for more info, they’re accused of victim shaming. Interesting.

+1 it’s got to be someone connected to the defendant. There’s some kind of vendetta against Carson.

Kind of a glaring Freudian slip there on your part (referring to the victim, who is the plaintiff, as the “defendant” instead).

But, yeah, no victim blaming or shaming going on there at all, right?

PP, I think you’ve lost it.

+1 it’s perfectly acceptable to refer to the victim as the defendant. That is not victim shaming.

[Anonymous]

Why is there a vast coverup of bullying in both FCPS and LCPS? It's ridiculous and the corruption runs deep. Even this blog deletes posts without explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure that this was not consensual sex? Now, if it indeed was not, then it seems a pretty clear cut case, and the offenders will have to pay a lot of money. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be an open and shut suit.

The victim shaming on display here is shameful.

Are you connected with the case somehow? Or just passing judgement based on your interpretation of the information?

I'm honestly beginning to think that someone connected to the case is blitzing posts on social media. Who knows. It might help, I suppose.

On a site primarily visited by women, you’re surprised that a girl subjected to repeated sexual harassment and assault that went largely ignored by school officials cuts a sympathetic figure?

It’s far more likely that you have a personal connection with one of the defendants, or are worried that your ill-mannered son might some day be called out for his boorishness.

+1. I wasn’t that other poster and completely am disgusted. So much venom towards a child victim. It makes me sick to read.

+2. When they say “we don’t really know all the facts,” what they are really doing is calling a victim of sexual assault a liar. It’s sickening.

This post has LITERALLY only shared one side of the story… and when some asks for more info, they’re accused of victim shaming. Interesting.

+1 it’s got to be someone connected to the defendant. There’s some kind of vendetta against Carson.

Kind of a glaring Freudian slip there on your part (referring to the victim, who is the plaintiff, as the “defendant” instead).

But, yeah, no victim blaming or shaming going on there at all, right?

PP, I think you’ve lost it.

+1 it’s perfectly acceptable to refer to the victim as the defendant. That is not victim shaming.

So you're saying the defendants in this case are the victims? So much for believing girls and women alleging assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS is good at covering things up. Look at how little anyone knows about Hayfield's admin being put on leave. Makes me wonder what else the county has hushed up. This poor woman.

Yes,they protect privacy. That's a good thing.

No, they cover up crime. That's a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure that this was not consensual sex? Now, if it indeed was not, then it seems a pretty clear cut case, and the offenders will have to pay a lot of money. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be an open and shut suit.

The victim shaming on display here is shameful.

Are you connected with the case somehow? Or just passing judgement based on your interpretation of the information?

I'm honestly beginning to think that someone connected to the case is blitzing posts on social media. Who knows. It might help, I suppose.

On a site primarily visited by women, you’re surprised that a girl subjected to repeated sexual harassment and assault that went largely ignored by school officials cuts a sympathetic figure?

It’s far more likely that you have a personal connection with one of the defendants, or are worried that your ill-mannered son might some day be called out for his boorishness.

+1. I wasn’t that other poster and completely am disgusted. So much venom towards a child victim. It makes me sick to read.

+2. When they say “we don’t really know all the facts,” what they are really doing is calling a victim of sexual assault a liar. It’s sickening.

This post has LITERALLY only shared one side of the story… and when some asks for more info, they’re accused of victim shaming. Interesting.

+1 it’s got to be someone connected to the defendant. There’s some kind of vendetta against Carson.

Kind of a glaring Freudian slip there on your part (referring to the victim, who is the plaintiff, as the “defendant” instead).

But, yeah, no victim blaming or shaming going on there at all, right?

PP, I think you’ve lost it.

+1 it’s perfectly acceptable to refer to the victim as the defendant. That is not victim shaming.

Wtf? How would the victim ever be considered a defendant? She's not a criminal. She's not being sued. Wow, really shows where your medieval mindset is at.

[Anonymous]

Following.

Interesting article in the WaPo - https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/03/30/fairfax-schools-sex-assault-lawsuit/

It mentions - B.R.’s case has been legally complex with hundreds of docket entries since she initially filed the lawsuit in 2019. She has been represented by multiple sets of lawyers.

I saw in the comments section -
1 attorney from Sheppard O'Brien (July 2019 - Dec. 2021)
1 attorney from Messa Associates (Dec. 2019 - Nov. 2021)
4 attorneys from Brett Binaizan (Nov. 2021 - July 2022)
4 attorneys from Dhillon Law (July 2022 - Sept. 2023)
3 attorneys from Joel Bieber (April 2023 - Sept. 2023)
1 attorney from Holtzman Vogel (Sept. 2023 - present)
7 attorneys from Boies Schiller (Sept. 2023 - present)
1 other attorney, now deceased
= 22 attorneys from 8 law firms representing the plaintiff; with complete replacement of counsel in November 2021, July 2022, and Sept. 2023

[Anonymous]

Oh goodie. The people tied to this case have shown up again to promote their side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh goodie. The people tied to this case have shown up again to promote their side.

+1 so tiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh goodie. The people tied to this case have shown up again to promote their side.

+1 so tiring.

oh goodie! the people who pretend there cannot possibly be something wrong with this lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Following.

Interesting article in the WaPo - https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/03/30/fairfax-schools-sex-assault-lawsuit/

It mentions - B.R.’s case has been legally complex with hundreds of docket entries since she initially filed the lawsuit in 2019. She has been represented by multiple sets of lawyers.

I saw in the comments section -
1 attorney from Sheppard O'Brien (July 2019 - Dec. 2021)
1 attorney from Messa Associates (Dec. 2019 - Nov. 2021)
4 attorneys from Brett Binaizan (Nov. 2021 - July 2022)
4 attorneys from Dhillon Law (July 2022 - Sept. 2023)
3 attorneys from Joel Bieber (April 2023 - Sept. 2023)
1 attorney from Holtzman Vogel (Sept. 2023 - present)
7 attorneys from Boies Schiller (Sept. 2023 - present)
1 other attorney, now deceased
= 22 attorneys from 8 law firms representing the plaintiff; with complete replacement of counsel in November 2021, July 2022, and Sept. 2023

Those who have legal background (I do not...), what might this suggest?