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?