Sidwell Paid a family $50K and agree to change grades??????????

[Anonymous]

Wait a minute, I just saw something interesting in the Memorandum Opinion and Judgement: "Dayo ultimately was denied admission to, placed on a waitlist for, or withdrew her applications from the schools she applied to that year."

The bolded part cannot be attributed to Sidwell.

Also, in the secondary school reports (SSR's) that were submitted by Sidwell to the colleges and universities to which Dayo appplied, her academic achievement was rated as good, very good, or excellent. Sidwell's explanation for the variation in ratings is that for each SSR, they compared her to the other Sidwell students applying to that school. So it seems that Sidwell did not throw her under the bus in these reports.

As for the grades, the DC Court of Appeals says that they had been corrected by October 4, 2013. Dayo did not submit a transcript release form until November 1, 2013. Therefore, any grading error did not appear in transcripts that were sent with her applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The joke has gone over my head as well..

The family’s lawsuit is the joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC graduated in the plaintiff daughtet’s class. She was an unremarkable student by SFS standards.

[/b]She graduated from Penn and now is a master student. What is the relevance of your opinion? Who is yor DC so we can look them up.

Is a “master student” like a “road scholar”?

Rhode Scholar....yikes

I think you missed the joke.

Missed the joke AND it is Rhodes Scholar ... yikes

Not that Sidwell would know. GDS has a recent Rhodes Scholar though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute, I just saw something interesting in the Memorandum Opinion and Judgement: "Dayo ultimately was denied admission to, placed on a waitlist for, or [b]withdrew her applications from the schools she applied to that year."

The bolded part cannot be attributed to Sidwell.

Also, in the secondary school reports (SSR's) that were submitted by Sidwell to the colleges and universities to which Dayo appplied, her academic achievement was rated as good, very good, or excellent. Sidwell's explanation for the variation in ratings is that for each SSR, they compared her to the other Sidwell students applying to that school. So it seems that Sidwell did not throw her under the bus in these reports.

As for the grades, the DC Court of Appeals says that they had been corrected by October 4, 2013. Dayo did not submit a transcript release form until November 1, 2013. Therefore, any grading error did not appear in transcripts that were sent with her applications.

[/b]


Excellent job at sleuthing, Sherlock! Also for pointing out that the family was ordered to pay Sidwell's costs because the suit was frivolous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is false. The family did not pay sidwell fees. You people will go so far to disparage a family. No wonder people do not speak up.

Here's the link to the DC Superior Court e-access system, if you want it: https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/search.page.3.2?x=HGD3Ublw3CoRtM8j3lZRlXk1PFPVd6P-N4Z4QVy66LhV-jsQhEAKTMG4zmgWt0vdvLYXs5ur2YugTApDxrA-jYZkl3iWULunlAJIEdorXyYwoGZoci7KhrAGlJaxILVyXfdEQ2Bgy37LZ2KCTDDEzUMcd4nk0Aw59XjF8ulhQMw. Should that fail, go to [url]https://eaccess.dccourts.gov [/url ]and search for the name Titilayo Adetu. On January 23, 2019 the appeals court upheld the trial court order which granted Sidwell $37,834.58 in costs.

I looked it up and you lied. The $37,834.58 was to cover the cost of recording the precedings at the request of the parties.

From Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Affirming the Grant of Summary Judgment in favor of Sidwell Friends School and Affirming the Bill of Costs in the amount of $37,834.58: "The Adetus also failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Sidwell's bill of costs in the amount of $37,834.58. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment and bill of costs" (1). Later: "Sidwell subsequently filed for a bill of costs, and after a hearing, the trial court determined almost all of the requested costs reasonable and necessary and granted costs to Sidwell in the amount of $37,834.58" (4). Throughout the document, only the phrase "bill of costs" is used.

Alleging that this amount pertains to the cost of recording is awfully specific, and the actual bill of costs is not one of the documents available through CourtView system. If the Adetus have not paid this amount to Sidwell, it's only because the case has been under appeal.

Anyway, interesting that you're investing so much in trying to discredit this point. Also interesting that you seem to know something that is not viewable in the public documents. Care to share a link?

So you agree bill of cost is not the legal fee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC graduated in the plaintiff daughtet’s class. She was an unremarkable student by SFS standards.

[/b]She graduated from Penn and now is a master student. What is the relevance of your opinion? Who is yor DC so we can look them up.

Is a “master student” like a “road scholar”?

Rhode Scholar....yikes

I think you missed the joke.

Missed the joke AND it is Rhodes Scholar ... yikes

Not that Sidwell would know. GDS has a recent Rhodes Scholar though.

Hi GDS troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute, I just saw something interesting in the Memorandum Opinion and Judgement: "Dayo ultimately was denied admission to, placed on a waitlist for, or withdrew her applications from the schools she applied to that year."

The bolded part cannot be attributed to Sidwell.

Also, in the secondary school reports (SSR's) that were submitted by Sidwell to the colleges and universities to which Dayo appplied, her academic achievement was rated as good, very good, or excellent. Sidwell's explanation for the variation in ratings is that for each SSR, they compared her to the other Sidwell students applying to that school. So it seems that Sidwell did not throw her under the bus in these reports.

As for the grades, the DC Court of Appeals says that they had been corrected by October 4, 2013. Dayo did not submit a transcript release form until November 1, 2013. Therefore, any grading error did not appear in transcripts that were sent with her applications.

Probably z-listed at Penn, so she was required to withdraw her applications at schools where she was waitlisted. Then walked on to track team. Good for her. Hopefully she (if not her parents) can move forward. Not meant as a criticism of plaintiffs; just an observation. This whole case didn't have to happen. There's a lot of crazy on both sides here, but Sidwell admins (some, not all) and college counselors can be arrogant and secretive, creating a lot of ill will and resentment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute, I just saw something interesting in the Memorandum Opinion and Judgement: "Dayo ultimately was denied admission to, placed on a waitlist for, or withdrew her applications from the schools she applied to that year."

The bolded part cannot be attributed to Sidwell.

Also, in the secondary school reports (SSR's) that were submitted by Sidwell to the colleges and universities to which Dayo appplied, her academic achievement was rated as good, very good, or excellent. Sidwell's explanation for the variation in ratings is that for each SSR, they compared her to the other Sidwell students applying to that school. So it seems that Sidwell did not throw her under the bus in these reports.

As for the grades, the DC Court of Appeals says that they had been corrected by October 4, 2013. Dayo did not submit a transcript release form until November 1, 2013. Therefore, any grading error did not appear in transcripts that were sent with her applications.

Probably z-listed at Penn, so she was required to withdraw her applications at schools where she was waitlisted. Then walked on to track team. Good for her. Hopefully she (if not her parents) can move forward. Not meant as a criticism of plaintiffs; just an observation. This whole case didn't have to happen. There's a lot of crazy on both sides here, but Sidwell admins (some, not all) and college counselors can be arrogant and secretive, creating a lot of ill will and resentment.

Or sometimes, in Sidwell's more recent experience, just affable but stupid....

[Anonymous]

Fortunately for our judicial system, not all things that create ill will and resentment are legally actionable.

[Anonymous]

Get over it people, jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is false. The family did not pay sidwell fees. You people will go so far to disparage a family. No wonder people do not speak up.

Here's the link to the DC Superior Court e-access system, if you want it: https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/search.page.3.2?x=HGD3Ublw3CoRtM8j3lZRlXk1PFPVd6P-N4Z4QVy66LhV-jsQhEAKTMG4zmgWt0vdvLYXs5ur2YugTApDxrA-jYZkl3iWULunlAJIEdorXyYwoGZoci7KhrAGlJaxILVyXfdEQ2Bgy37LZ2KCTDDEzUMcd4nk0Aw59XjF8ulhQMw. Should that fail, go to [url]https://eaccess.dccourts.gov [/url ]and search for the name Titilayo Adetu. On January 23, 2019 the appeals court upheld the trial court order which granted Sidwell $37,834.58 in costs.

I looked it up and you lied. The $37,834.58 was to cover the cost of recording the precedings at the request of the parties.

From Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Affirming the Grant of Summary Judgment in favor of Sidwell Friends School and Affirming the Bill of Costs in the amount of $37,834.58: "The Adetus also failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Sidwell's bill of costs in the amount of $37,834.58. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment and bill of costs" (1). Later: "Sidwell subsequently filed for a bill of costs, and after a hearing, the trial court determined almost all of the requested costs reasonable and necessary and granted costs to Sidwell in the amount of $37,834.58" (4). Throughout the document, only the phrase "bill of costs" is used.

Alleging that this amount pertains to the cost of recording is awfully specific, and the actual bill of costs is not one of the documents available through CourtView system. If the Adetus have not paid this amount to Sidwell, it's only because the case has been under appeal.

Anyway, interesting that you're investing so much in trying to discredit this point. Also interesting that you seem to know something that is not viewable in the public documents. Care to share a link?

So you agree bill of cost is not the legal fee?

Is it really worth your time to parse "fees" versus "costs?"

That is truly pathetic.

[Anonymous]

DP but it is a real distinction that goes to the merits. Don't pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP but it is a real distinction that goes to the merits. Don't pretend otherwise.

The law suit had no merits! Three strikes and the plaintiffs are out. Time for them to let it go, or more likely, find a new scam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but it is a real distinction that goes to the merits. Don't pretend otherwise.

The law suit had no merits! Three strikes and the plaintiffs are out. Time for them to let it go, or more likely, find a new scam.

Exactly! Practicing lawyer here. No one is awarded costs, fees, etc. unless the suit is frivolous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is false. The family did not pay sidwell fees. You people will go so far to disparage a family. No wonder people do not speak up.

Here's the link to the DC Superior Court e-access system, if you want it: https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/search.page.3.2?x=HGD3Ublw3CoRtM8j3lZRlXk1PFPVd6P-N4Z4QVy66LhV-jsQhEAKTMG4zmgWt0vdvLYXs5ur2YugTApDxrA-jYZkl3iWULunlAJIEdorXyYwoGZoci7KhrAGlJaxILVyXfdEQ2Bgy37LZ2KCTDDEzUMcd4nk0Aw59XjF8ulhQMw. Should that fail, go to [url]https://eaccess.dccourts.gov [/url ]and search for the name Titilayo Adetu. On January 23, 2019 the appeals court upheld the trial court order which granted Sidwell $37,834.58 in costs.

I looked it up and you lied. The $37,834.58 was to cover the cost of recording the precedings at the request of the parties.

From Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Affirming the Grant of Summary Judgment in favor of Sidwell Friends School and Affirming the Bill of Costs in the amount of $37,834.58: "The Adetus also failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Sidwell's bill of costs in the amount of $37,834.58. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment and bill of costs" (1). Later: "Sidwell subsequently filed for a bill of costs, and after a hearing, the trial court determined almost all of the requested costs reasonable and necessary and granted costs to Sidwell in the amount of $37,834.58" (4). Throughout the document, only the phrase "bill of costs" is used.

Alleging that this amount pertains to the cost of recording is awfully specific, and the actual bill of costs is not one of the documents available through CourtView system. If the Adetus have not paid this amount to Sidwell, it's only because the case has been under appeal.

Anyway, interesting that you're investing so much in trying to discredit this point. Also interesting that you seem to know something that is not viewable in the public documents. Care to share a link?

[b]So you agree bill of cost is not the legal fee?

[/b]


NO! Costs = legal fees. The costs Sidwell suffered by defending this frivolous suit.
LEGAL COSTS | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/legal-costs
legal costs. noun [ plural ] uk ? us ? also legal expenses LAW. the money that helps pay for the lawyers and the court in a legal case, usually paid by the person or organization that has lost the case: The company had to pay €138,000 in legal costs, after it admitted violating safety codes at two of its factories.