Whittle

[Anonymous]

It’s so worth for the teachers and screwed-over (i.e., not the inner circle parent committee families) parents to sue. Just not Chris Whittle. I’d (personal opinion) be the first in line to sue the parents committee families (they’re good for it, and no Chapter anything protection) plus sure sounds like mislead peeps to have their offspring fauxgraduate. DC, thank you very much, has a very strong consumer protection set of laws plus treble damages. Just my opinion based on nothing

[Anonymous]

Wait. You want the teachers to sue the folks that kicked in $$& to pay the teachers when whittle failed to do so and to keep the school that the teachers worked for afloat through the end of the school year?

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Monica’s friend. Yes, I do. It’s called consumer protection, possibly fraud and yes, there were damages to the teachers and other parents. Oh, and, I’d request documents in the discovery that would finally tell us exactly who got paid, when and how much, especially Monica, while misleading other parents and teachers to get to the graduation.

If I was taken like that, I would be pissed and preparing a complaint already.

[Anonymous]

If certain parents - WHO HAD ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIALS - encouraged and solicited other parents to contribute to Whittle, and didn't share those confidential financials, I would 100% sue those parents. And I am a litigator BTW.

[Anonymous]

Dear litigator. - they - the parents committee -signed confidentiality agreements per the Washington Business Journal. You are going to sue them for not breaking their agreements ? Or did you mean something else ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear litigator. - they - the parents committee -signed confidentiality agreements per the Washington Business Journal. You are going to sue them for not breaking their agreements ? Or did you mean something else ?

Different litigator here. No, you are distorting PP's obvious implication: the suit is premised on their knowingly false statements made in encouraging and soliciting parents to contribute to Whittle. Statements they knew to be false based on their access to those confidential financials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear litigator. - they - the parents committee -signed confidentiality agreements per the Washington Business Journal. You are going to sue them for not breaking their agreements ? Or did you mean something else ?

Different litigator here. No, you are distorting PP's obvious implication: the suit is premised on their knowingly false statements made in encouraging and soliciting parents to contribute to Whittle. Statements they knew to be false based on their access to those confidential financials.

There are so many examples to cite, but the below from an email (I think either from MR or MB in April of this year) is such a stunning example of a false and / or misleading statement - somehow attempting to take a victory lap as the landlord was dealing with a painful restructuring of the debt on the building and making it seem that this was in fact "WONDERFUL NEWS" and that it was connected to a huge "capital transaction" materializing. Pretty sure the landlord wasn't celebrating as their subsequent legal filings against CBRE indicate! And yet MB, MR and the Parent No Capital No Strategy Committee were happy to obfuscate and baffle with BS to serve their own interests.

"As Chris noted in our Parent Forum last week, we expected a major part of the larger capital transaction (the refinancing of the building’s debt) to close at any moment. Chris just called me to let me know the closing has just been completed! Though frustratingly long in the making, this is WONDERFUL NEWS that we should all celebrate. As we discussed in the forum, the other two parts of the transaction with Whittle and Friendship Charter can now move forward. We expect these to move quickly and will keep you posted when they close as well."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear litigator. - they - the parents committee -signed confidentiality agreements per the Washington Business Journal. You are going to sue them for not breaking their agreements ? Or did you mean something else ?

Different litigator here. No, you are distorting PP's obvious implication: the suit is premised on their knowingly false statements made in encouraging and soliciting parents to contribute to Whittle. Statements they knew to be false based on their access to those confidential financials.

There are so many examples to cite, but the below from an email (I think either from MR or MB in April of this year) is such a stunning example of a false and / or misleading statement - somehow attempting to take a victory lap as the landlord was dealing with a painful restructuring of the debt on the building and making it seem that this was in fact "WONDERFUL NEWS" and that it was connected to a huge "capital transaction" materializing. Pretty sure the landlord wasn't celebrating as their subsequent legal filings against CBRE indicate! And yet MB, MR and the Parent No Capital No Strategy Committee were happy to obfuscate and baffle with BS to serve their own interests.

"As Chris noted in our Parent Forum last week, we expected a major part of the larger capital transaction (the refinancing of the building’s debt) to close at any moment. Chris just called me to let me know the closing has just been completed! Though frustratingly long in the making, this is WONDERFUL NEWS that we should all celebrate. As we discussed in the forum, the other two parts of the transaction with Whittle and Friendship Charter can now move forward. We expect these to move quickly and will keep you posted when they close as well."

Wait. Monica Bisgaard may have sent that email?

[Anonymous]

Whittle is history. Why are we still discussing this schitt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whittle is history. Why are we still discussing this schitt

Read back 800 posts and maybe you’ll understand, dummy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, Monica’s friend. Yes, I do. It’s called consumer protection, possibly fraud and yes, there were damages to the teachers and other parents. Oh, and, I’d request documents in the discovery that would finally tell us exactly who got paid, when and how much, especially Monica, while misleading other parents and teachers to get to the graduation.

If I was taken like that, I would be pissed and preparing a complaint already.

The teachers are able to sue under consumer protection statute?

[Anonymous]

And assuming a misleading statement in April 2022 by a parent committee member (after most tuition was paid for the 22-23 year and long after parents were getting far less than what they were paying for in educational services), what are the damages on the consumer protection/fraud front?

[Anonymous]

So if I were induced to buy the boarding kids $100 worth of sandwiches and $50 worth of Coke for the Teacher's lounge based on the parent's "knowingly false statements" there is a lawyer out there willing to take the case?

Would the recovery if successful even cover the filing fee for the complaint?

[Anonymous]

If you were induced to contribute to a several million dollar bridge loan as was reportedly collected, then it’s a tad more compelling than a coke and a sandwich, no?

[Anonymous]

Which one of the litigators here is ready for their firm to take this case on contingency and cover the costs for a couple of years until you recover the damages? I'd love to see a link to the actual filing when it happens.

If it happens. Not it SHOULD happen rah rah rah, but the actual filing, please.