Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know I am torn. He is mad and has every right to be mad..his daughter was put in a very compromising position and the fact he has custody now says a lot. Sidwell owes him big time...they should pay and apologize and I am thinking they were very casual about it. Big mistake. They should have taken this seriously from start..investigated and fired the school shrink asap--what was the shrink over the home evaluating brilliance anyway..that a lone I would fire. What I think is awful is his dragging the Woodward family into this..what did they ever do to him..that was terrible. Gosh I think they may have reason to sue the school themselves. Good thing this girl is being raised elsewhere..she has a shot to not allow this to affect her. FWIW..I still think it's a great school..I do but hopefully the school fixes this asap.

Maybe. But in my opinion he also seems like a self-centered rich old egotist whose barely-legal trophy wife strayed once he built up immunity to all the Viagra he was likely popping.

Barely legal? She's in her 40s.

Here is a little bit of "the rest of the story." The interesting stuff is at the beginning and then at page 12-end. http://dcslapplaw.com/files/2013/01/Huntington_opp_slapp_mol.pdf

Huntington, the psychologist, filed a counterclaim against Newmyer, saying Newmyer is defaming him. Newmyer tried to block Huntington's counterclaim, but lost in two different courts.

Some facts from Huntington's side that I have not seen in the news reports:

@ Newmyer and ex-wife were already legally separated and living as if each were single, well before any of this occurred. Newmyer himself had already had two relationships of his own.

@ Newmyer is loaded (17 million), and hired a PR firm to publicize his complaint and the details. (Sort of makes me wonder whether this recent media blitz, and even some posts here, might be the work of the PR firm.)

@ Huntington did lose his job due to pressure from Newmyer. But he did not lose his license. In fact, the licensing board found that Huntington was never actually treating the child and never had any sort of professional relationship. (This fact makes me wonder if the ex-wife was just telling Newmyer that the reason she was spending so much time with the psychologist was to treat the daughter, when in reality, she was simply dating the psychologist.)

@ If Huntington was not really treating the child at all (as the licensing board found), what's the legal claim against the school? Can't be held liable for any supposed lapse in treatment or violation of duty, if there was no real psych-patient relationship. I'm not sure why the school cannot get out of the case. Maybe the judge ruled that the licensing board's decision is not binding, so a jury could theoretically disagree with the licensing board.

@ IMHO, this all starts to sound more like a relationship between two consenting adults, and a vindictive ex-husband who is using his wealth to try to punish and control his ex-wife. It seems like Newmyer tied in the school on a weak link just to ensure his claims would get national media attention, so he could further embarrass his ex-wife and her new boyfriend.

@ Even if Newmyer was totally right in all his claims and everything he said was true (just hypothetically), what father would hire a PR firm to put all that salacious info out there about himself, his daughters, and their mother? What kind of father shoves his daughters into the national media spotlight like that? He does not seem to be acting in their best interests. It seems like he is using his daughters to get revenge on his ex-wife.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the actual complaint. I would encourage everyone to read it (preferably tonight with a full glass of wine).

There is some *really* good stuff in here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55276950/Sidwell-Lawsuit

Really good stuff? You must be mighty bored. The wine is your only good suggestion. Cheers!

I disagree. This is really good stuff, not your usual dry court pleading.

Yes, it is really good stuff. I couldn't believe I was reading some court document. More like a trashy novel.

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell Friends.... With benefits.

Lol

+1

1:37 here- yes, so funny but I plagerized it off a comment section of an article regarding this case.

Wish I were that clever.

That was really good 1:37.

Sidwell Friends.... With benefits.

Lol

Seems there was an ethnics breach on part of psychologist and a lack of supervision( on part of the school) of its employee.

Whether the motivation behind the lawsuit is vindictive or not does not change those two facts.

Thirdly, reading the emails the psychologist sent to the mom of his 5 year old patient ( ICK) it seems the school made a poor hire and one wonders how a professional who obviously held the 8th grade girls he taught in such contempt( imho) as well as the 5 YOA child ( ref to " should I talk to your daughter about what I want to do to you ( the mom) in bed.

That email mocks his role, makes light of the child's age, immaturity and vulnerability and is, well,in plain english the kind of thing a real pig would say( imho).... So, then the question is how did this school come to hire such a man of that low character( imho) and put him in such a confidential role ? And leave him there. For 10 years ? ( let me guess: he knew who his real employers were( the rich and influential parents who fill the school) and he ( imho) lined up his allies by playing on those same parents fears and hopes about their kids academic abilities. Such as flattering a mother that her child is gifted because you know that is what she is angling and or deep down emotionally needing to have validated. imho, that is abuse while functioning in the role his profession. Sadly, THAT does not go recognized in private schools in this town if you flatter the right parents and board members.

Perhaps his " calling out the Woodwards " was his way to deflect attention to what seems, imho, his standard MO.

IMHO, the school is in over its head with their cash cow. The parent community does consist of the types that are used to getting their way, the pressure on the staff must be immense ( an the rewards of an ambitious networker must also seem immense) and that environment tends to corrupt.

Oh, and btw, the stated purpose of this entity is education of young people.

I've seen it in private schools all over town.

Parents need to get the heck out of schools and let teachers get back to teaching and administrators back to managing teachers, not parents and their endless needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plaintiff seems like a vindictive bastard, whose primary goal is to trash the everyone involved, so maybe quiet settlement was not a viable option. If that's how it's going down, then as a private school parent, I'd want my school to fight rather than cave in to that kind of trash.

Yes, this seems to be more about his perception that they made a fool of him than about actual harm, given that Sidwell fired the employee (and I assume he's been sanctioned and/or lost his license).

The actual harm arose not just from Huntington's breach of the code of professional ethics but also from Sidwell's negligent supervision of its employee for a year or more from the time it knew or reasonably should have known of Huntington's misconduct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the actual complaint. I would encourage everyone to read it (preferably tonight with a full glass of wine).

There is some *really* good stuff in here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55276950/Sidwell-Lawsuit

Really good stuff? You must be mighty bored. The wine is your only good suggestion. Cheers!

I disagree. This is really good stuff, not your usual dry court pleading.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff needs to create a whole forum for Sidwell I don't think I can take a whole year of this.

Maybe a forum for Big 3 and a forum for the Small Fish Private Schools.

Anybody else here that could not care less what happens at Sidwell? Two people had sex, a husband is mad.... maybe we can move this to the relationships forum. Seems par for the course for that Forum.

Oh my! Woe's you!!

Anonymous wrote:Here is the actual complaint. I would encourage everyone to read it (preferably tonight with a full glass of wine).

There is some *really* good stuff in here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55276950/Sidwell-Lawsuit

WOWIE

Sidwell will not be able to settle this. Nothing worse than a prominent alum scorned.

There is a missing piece here - why did Sidwell go out of their way to protect the creeper? Especially after a year of complaints from big school supporter.

Was the creeper a URM? All photos have been scrubbed from the web.

Anonymous wrote:Here is the actual complaint. I would encourage everyone to read it (preferably tonight with a full glass of wine).

There is some *really* good stuff in here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55276950/Sidwell-Lawsuit

Gonna need a full bottle for this one. First off: I didn't realize he was suing also on behalf of the daughter. Now on to page 2 of the complaint. Might need popcorn.

Anonymous wrote:Here is the actual complaint. I would encourage everyone to read it (preferably tonight with a full glass of wine).

There is some *really* good stuff in here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55276950/Sidwell-Lawsuit

Really good stuff? You must be mighty bored. The wine is your only good suggestion. Cheers!

Here is the actual complaint. I would encourage everyone to read it (preferably tonight with a full glass of wine).

There is some *really* good stuff in here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55276950/Sidwell-Lawsuit