Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie needs public shaming while the lawsuit is being organized. Protests outside her house? Social media campaign?

Cool. I’m sure she would appreciate a good counter suit. And an easily winnable one at that!

Why are you advocating for a person who took 35,000 children's private data without their or their parents' consent and shared it with others? Listen to yourself.

I surely didn't give Callie permission to give my kid's data to the vice president of legal affairs at Goldwater Institute.

Did you give permission for fcps to give it to Callie?

Well, she was inadvertently given access to it by FCPS. But she copied the files, kept them and shared them knowing they are private data. It might not be a criminal charge, but a class action civil suit is worth it.

Emotional distress plus time spent hunting down where our kids' information might be.

Any civil charges against the Goldwater institute for taking files he knew had others' private data on it? It is illegal to distribute, post, email, or disclose any other person's information without his or her consent--she did that with him at least. And it sounds like with the journalist too.

Sounds like that’s what fcps did.

There's a difference between unintentional acts and intentional acts. FCPS made a terrible mistake, Oettinger and friends committed intentional acts.

That terrible mistake had some real consequences, didn’t it. Maybe they should do better next time. Because this isn’t the first time….with this person!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:is it that she was given computer and just started downloading anything she could v review a single set of papers that someone gave her to look at?

According to her recent website update:

"I copied old FERPA requests while looking through paper records, since I'd lost info through the years. I DID NOT know that I was copying records for over 35,000 kids." My interpretation: While looking at paper documents I started an electronic file copy process that downloaded a large number of documents that I was not supposed to access.

also:

"I did see a paper record that had other kids' names. I copied it because the info for other kids was benign and the majority related to my own kids." My interpretation: I mean... I don't even need to interpret. She saw a document with others' info on it and unilaterally decided that she had a right to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie needs public shaming while the lawsuit is being organized. Protests outside her house? Social media campaign?

Cool. I’m sure she would appreciate a good counter suit. And an easily winnable one at that!

Why are you advocating for a person who took 35,000 children's private data without their or their parents' consent and shared it with others? Listen to yourself.

I surely didn't give Callie permission to give my kid's data to the vice president of legal affairs at Goldwater Institute.

Did you give permission for fcps to give it to Callie?

Well, she was inadvertently given access to it by FCPS. But she copied the files, kept them and shared them knowing they are private data. It might not be a criminal charge, but a class action civil suit is worth it.

Emotional distress plus time spent hunting down where our kids' information might be.

Any civil charges against the Goldwater institute for taking files he knew had others' private data on it? It is illegal to distribute, post, email, or disclose any other person's information without his or her consent--she did that with him at least. And it sounds like with the journalist too.

Sounds like that’s what fcps did.

There's a difference between unintentional acts and intentional acts. FCPS made a terrible mistake, Oettinger and friends committed intentional acts.

WTF is wrong with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie needs public shaming while the lawsuit is being organized. Protests outside her house? Social media campaign?

Cool. I’m sure she would appreciate a good counter suit. And an easily winnable one at that!

Why are you advocating for a person who took 35,000 children's private data without their or their parents' consent and shared it with others? Listen to yourself.

I surely didn't give Callie permission to give my kid's data to the vice president of legal affairs at Goldwater Institute.

Did you give permission for fcps to give it to Callie?

Well, she was inadvertently given access to it by FCPS. But she copied the files, kept them and shared them knowing they are private data. It might not be a criminal charge, but a class action civil suit is worth it.

Emotional distress plus time spent hunting down where our kids' information might be.

Any civil charges against the Goldwater institute for taking files he knew had others' private data on it? It is illegal to distribute, post, email, or disclose any other person's information without his or her consent--she did that with him at least. And it sounds like with the journalist too.

Sounds like that’s what fcps did.

They didn’t do it intentionally. Or with malice.

There is a theory that someone at FCPS intentionally gave it to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is it that she was given computer and just started downloading anything she could v review a single set of papers that someone gave her to look at?

According to her recent website update:

"I copied old FERPA requests while looking through paper records, since I'd lost info through the years. I DID NOT know that I was copying records for over 35,000 kids." My interpretation: While looking at paper documents I started an electronic file copy process that downloaded a large number of documents that I was not supposed to access.

also:

"I did see a paper record that had other kids' names. I copied it because the info for other kids was benign and the majority related to my own kids." My interpretation: I mean... I don't even need to interpret. She saw a document with others' info on it and unilaterally decided that she had a right to it.

Wait so she was given access to a computer and downloaded as much as she could?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie needs public shaming while the lawsuit is being organized. Protests outside her house? Social media campaign?

Cool. I’m sure she would appreciate a good counter suit. And an easily winnable one at that!

Based on what?

What is being suggested can easily turn into slander and harassment. But you do you.

Callie is the one who harasses school staff. Truth is a defense to slander. Protests on public streets are allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie needs public shaming while the lawsuit is being organized. Protests outside her house? Social media campaign?

Cool. I’m sure she would appreciate a good counter suit. And an easily winnable one at that!

Based on what?

What is being suggested can easily turn into slander and harassment. But you do you.

Callie is the one who harasses school staff. Truth is a defense to slander. Protests on public streets are allowed.

If you have a permit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is it that she was given computer and just started downloading anything she could v review a single set of papers that someone gave her to look at?

According to her recent website update:

"I copied old FERPA requests while looking through paper records, since I'd lost info through the years. I DID NOT know that I was copying records for over 35,000 kids." My interpretation: While looking at paper documents I started an electronic file copy process that downloaded a large number of documents that I was not supposed to access.

also:

"I did see a paper record that had other kids' names. I copied it because the info for other kids was benign and the majority related to my own kids." My interpretation: I mean... I don't even need to interpret. She saw a document with others' info on it and unilaterally decided that she had a right to it.

Wait so she was given access to a computer and downloaded as much as she could?!

No, a paralegal an IT “expert” let her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue any and everyone. But also lobby for a state law that prevents publishing private medical information that was mistakenly provided.

We are where we are because a judge ruled Callie and that other woman can legally publish private medical records. There is no benefit to the public by making these private medical records public.

Callie is a horrible person for doing this and it’s insane we need to legislate common sense. But here we are.

Not true. What she did was criminal.

Nope. That is not what the court ruling said.

Cite the ruling, otherwise you’re lying.

https://wset.com/virginia-judge-ruling-favors-fairfax-county-moms-fcps-school-board-spending-debra-tisler-callie-oettinger-goldwater-institute

Now you cite the judge’s ruling that this woman is a criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie needs public shaming while the lawsuit is being organized. Protests outside her house? Social media campaign?

Cool. I’m sure she would appreciate a good counter suit. And an easily winnable one at that!

Based on what?

What is being suggested can easily turn into slander and harassment. But you do you.

Callie is the one who harasses school staff. Truth is a defense to slander. Protests on public streets are allowed.

If you have a permit.

Obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue any and everyone. But also lobby for a state law that prevents publishing private medical information that was mistakenly provided.

We are where we are because a judge ruled Callie and that other woman can legally publish private medical records. There is no benefit to the public by making these private medical records public.

Callie is a horrible person for doing this and it’s insane we need to legislate common sense. But here we are.

Not true. What she did was criminal.

Nope. That is not what the court ruling said.

Cite the ruling, otherwise you’re lying.

https://wset.com/virginia-judge-ruling-favors-fairfax-county-moms-fcps-school-board-spending-debra-tisler-callie-oettinger-goldwater-institute

Now you cite the judge’s ruling that this woman is a criminal.

But that’s not fair. I can’t find one because it doesn’t exist. But she’s a criminal because I say so, and I really don’t like what she did. This isn’t fair. I’m going to keep saying she’s a criminal because if I say it enough, that makes it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue any and everyone. But also lobby for a state law that prevents publishing private medical information that was mistakenly provided.

We are where we are because a judge ruled Callie and that other woman can legally publish private medical records. There is no benefit to the public by making these private medical records public.

Callie is a horrible person for doing this and it’s insane we need to legislate common sense. But here we are.

Not true. What she did was criminal.

Nope. That is not what the court ruling said.

Cite the ruling, otherwise you’re lying.

https://wset.com/virginia-judge-ruling-favors-fairfax-county-moms-fcps-school-board-spending-debra-tisler-callie-oettinger-goldwater-institute

Now you cite the judge’s ruling that this woman is a criminal.

But that’s not fair. I can’t find one because it doesn’t exist. But she’s a criminal because I say so, and I really don’t like what she did. This isn’t fair. I’m going to keep saying she’s a criminal because if I say it enough, that makes it true.

Yep! Which is why laws need to change so that what she did would be illegal if anyone else does this going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue any and everyone. But also lobby for a state law that prevents publishing private medical information that was mistakenly provided.

We are where we are because a judge ruled Callie and that other woman can legally publish private medical records. There is no benefit to the public by making these private medical records public.

Callie is a horrible person for doing this and it’s insane we need to legislate common sense. But here we are.

Not true. What she did was criminal.

Nope. That is not what the court ruling said.

Cite the ruling, otherwise you’re lying.

https://wset.com/virginia-judge-ruling-favors-fairfax-county-moms-fcps-school-board-spending-debra-tisler-callie-oettinger-goldwater-institute

Now you cite the judge’s ruling that this woman is a criminal.

DP: Doesn't have an iota to do with how she will do in a civil class action suit though. I don't even think it will be that hard. Parents against her about what she did after she got the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue any and everyone. But also lobby for a state law that prevents publishing private medical information that was mistakenly provided.

We are where we are because a judge ruled Callie and that other woman can legally publish private medical records. There is no benefit to the public by making these private medical records public.

Callie is a horrible person for doing this and it’s insane we need to legislate common sense. But here we are.

Not true. What she did was criminal.

Nope. That is not what the court ruling said.

Cite the ruling, otherwise you’re lying.

https://wset.com/virginia-judge-ruling-favors-fairfax-county-moms-fcps-school-board-spending-debra-tisler-callie-oettinger-goldwater-institute

Now you cite the judge’s ruling that this woman is a criminal.

DP: Doesn't have an iota to do with how she will do in a civil class action suit though. I don't even think it will be that hard. Parents against her about what she did after she got the data.

Most parents are more mad at fcps. It’s the political ops that roam this site that are looking past that and wanting to go after Callie. Don’t believe the hype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue any and everyone. But also lobby for a state law that prevents publishing private medical information that was mistakenly provided.

We are where we are because a judge ruled Callie and that other woman can legally publish private medical records. There is no benefit to the public by making these private medical records public.

Callie is a horrible person for doing this and it’s insane we need to legislate common sense. But here we are.

Not true. What she did was criminal.

Nope. That is not what the court ruling said.

Cite the ruling, otherwise you’re lying.

https://wset.com/virginia-judge-ruling-favors-fairfax-county-moms-fcps-school-board-spending-debra-tisler-callie-oettinger-goldwater-institute

Now you cite the judge’s ruling that this woman is a criminal.

DP: Doesn't have an iota to do with how she will do in a civil class action suit though. I don't even think it will be that hard. Parents against her about what she did after she got the data.

+1

She will get crushed in a civil case.