Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Orlanth wrote:
I did indeed read what she wrote.

Now prove she didn't come by this information any other way than from disclosure from her parents. She was aware of the problem and of the case and knew the school. She was aware her father came into some money about the same time he was no longer worried about the unfair dismissal lawsuit, she was aware the case was ended from her father, but there is no proof he told her any more than that.

I don't have to prove anything. It was evidently proven in court, on the balance of probabilities. Hence the sum from the settlement being made forfeit.

 Orlanth wrote:
These stipulations are unenforceable if the information can be gleaned in other ways. We have no knowledge that Dana Snay knew any specifics of the settlement or such information was disclosed by her father and she would likely have been aware of the case a priori.
If she mentioned $80K damages then there would have been a confidentiality breach, all she knew from her dad was that he won his case and she could have discerned that anyway through external means. That level of info was inconcealable to a closely related third party and thus the terms were unfair.

Yet the court still found the terms (which they were privy to, unlike us) enforceable.

 Orlanth wrote:
The big issue here is how much can you keep a secret information that is already partly disclosed. It is fair to assume that Patricks Snay's family were aware of the existance of the lawsuit a priori, in other words they knew a suit was pending prior to any settlement terms being discussed. Therefore settlement terms to be fair and reasonably enforceable must include what can be said to someone who already has some of the information. A fair and reasonable assessment of this is to reveal that the case was 'successfully closed' revealing no further details beyond this point.
Dana Snay therefore can reasonably told the case was successfully closed. Now at that point Patrick Snay cannot reveal the forfiture terms of the settlement to his daughter, or others who knew of the case a priori. This allows third parties to make reasonable assumptions of their own and while it might not be wise for them to post them on a social media site, it is within their rights to do so.

It is within their right to do so. As it was within the rights of the college of return the matter to court after the Facebook post.
There was indeed a simple solution - the father should have told the daughter "The court case has been concluded. I cannot tell you the result, and I would appreciate it if you did not discuss the matter further"

 Orlanth wrote:
A good lawyer can argue the original terms were unenforceable. Patrick Snay was not in a position to deny the existance of a settlement lawsuit to those with a priori knowledge of it and was unable to warn those who had a priori knowledge of it of the settlement terms restrictions if he cannot mention its existance. Thus he is not easily provably responsible as a source for his daughters indiscretions.

Except those facts would have likely been presented to the court before the monies were ruled forfeit, and the facts of the matter established.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


I don't have to prove anything. It was evidently proven in court, on the balance of probabilities. Hence the sum from the settlement being made forfeit....

...Yet the court still found the terms (which they were privy to, unlike us) enforceable.

This is open to dispute:

Miama Herald wrote:The post, seen by current and former Gulliver students, made its way back to the school’s attorneys, who told the Snays they’d violated the deal. Patrick Snay last year won a Circuit Court ruling to enforce the deal, but Judge Linda Ann Wells overturned that decision Wednesday.

You see Snay won his case, the school withheld payment after seeing the Facebook comments. Snay won a Circuit Court ruling to reinstate payment and the school then appealed.
This isn't open and shut as different judges have already come to different conclusions as to where Patrick Snay should be paid his damages. There is no overall legal consensus that goes one way or another, just a current court decision.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The big issue here is how much can you keep a secret information that is already partly disclosed. It is fair to assume that Patricks Snay's family were aware of the existance of the lawsuit a priori, in other words they knew a suit was pending prior to any settlement terms being discussed. Therefore settlement terms to be fair and reasonably enforceable must include what can be said to someone who already has some of the information. A fair and reasonable assessment of this is to reveal that the case was 'successfully closed' revealing no further details beyond this point.
Dana Snay therefore can reasonably told the case was successfully closed. Now at that point Patrick Snay cannot reveal the forfiture terms of the settlement to his daughter, or others who knew of the case a priori. This allows third parties to make reasonable assumptions of their own and while it might not be wise for them to post them on a social media site, it is within their rights to do so.

It is within their right to do so. As it was within the rights of the college of return the matter to court after the Facebook post.
There was indeed a simple solution - the father should have told the daughter "The court case has been concluded. I cannot tell you the result, and I would appreciate it if you did not discuss the matter further"

Nope sorry. That involves mentioning the existence of the settlement and is therefore in breach of the settlement terms.

He cannot reveal that the case has been concluded - that was revealed as the reason for the claimed breach.
He cannot tell her the result - that much is fair of itself but irrelevant because of the first point.
He cannot reveal why his daughter could not discuss this further - and she had a large Facebook circle of contacts at the time with connections to the school, and had a vested interested in the case because of her treatment there revealing 2psychological scars" You haver to find a way to tell a socially wired teenage daughter not to discuss an issue of interest to her, without telling her why. I don't think this is logically enforceable.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Except those facts would have likely been presented to the court before the monies were ruled forfeit, and the facts of the matter established.

The facts of the matter went two different ways so they were not de facto established and are open to discussion. At least one Circuit Court would disagree with your comment according to the evidence presented before their court at the time.
If one of the courts related to the case can see a flaw in Gulliver Preparatory School's case for non payment this means we can give it a shot between ourselves without a hand wave saying that it was 'proven- end of'.
If Patrick Snay had gone to court to contest the non-payment, lost and lost again on appeal you would have a point.

 Orlanth wrote:
You see Snay won his case, the school withheld payment after seeing the Facebook comments. Snay won a Circuit Court ruling to reinstate payment and the school then appealed.
This isn't open and shut as different judges have already come to different conclusions as to where Patrick Snay should be paid his damages. There is no overall legal consensus that goes one way or another, just a current court decision.

Welcome to how the legal system works. Where the last judgement is correct until it is ruled otherwise by a higher court

 Orlanth wrote:
Nope sorry. That involves mentioning the existence of the settlement and is therefore in breach of the settlement terms.

He cannot reveal that the case has been concluded - that was revealed as the reason for the claimed breach.
He cannot tell her the result - that much is fair of itself but irrelevant because of the first point.
He cannot reveal why his daughter could not discuss this further - and she had a large Facebook circle of contacts at the time with connections to the school, and had a vested interested in the case because of her treatment there revealing 2psychological scars" You haver to find a way to tell a socially wired teenage daughter not to discuss an issue of interest to her, without telling her why. I don't think this is logically enforceable.

You mean the terms of the settlement, including the confidentiality clause, that we are not privy to? Those are some bold statements you're making there without seeing the document.
In that case it is even simpler;
"Dad, what happened with your court case"
"I'm sorry, but I can't say and I would appreciate it if you didn't mention it again"

 Orlanth wrote:
The facts of the matter went two different ways so they were not de facto established and are open to discussion. At least one Circuit Court would disagree with your comment according to the evidence presented before their court at the time.
If one of the courts related to the case can see a flaw in Gulliver Preparatory School's case for non payment this means we can give it a shot between ourselves without a hand wave saying that it was 'proven- end of'.
If Patrick Snay had gone to court to contest the non-payment, lost and lost again on appeal you would have a point.

Well, the last court had the (currently) final say, and while their judgement stands it was obviously made on the facts, which they felt legally supported the forfeiture of the settlement monies.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You see Snay won his case, the school withheld payment after seeing the Facebook comments. Snay won a Circuit Court ruling to reinstate payment and the school then appealed.
This isn't open and shut as different judges have already come to different conclusions as to where Patrick Snay should be paid his damages. There is no overall legal consensus that goes one way or another, just a current court decision.

Welcome to how the legal system works. Where the last judgement is correct until it is ruled otherwise by a higher court

Not the point you were pointing to authority to disavow discussion rather than address the issues.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nope sorry. That involves mentioning the existence of the settlement and is therefore in breach of the settlement terms.

He cannot reveal that the case has been concluded - that was revealed as the reason for the claimed breach.
He cannot tell her the result - that much is fair of itself but irrelevant because of the first point.
He cannot reveal why his daughter could not discuss this further - and she had a large Facebook circle of contacts at the time with connections to the school, and had a vested interested in the case because of her treatment there revealing 2psychological scars" You haver to find a way to tell a socially wired teenage daughter not to discuss an issue of interest to her, without telling her why. I don't think this is logically enforceable.

You mean the terms of the settlement, including the confidentiality clause, that we are not privy to? Those are some bold statements you're making there without seeing the document.

We can only go with what we know, but if you have a problem with that why are you on this thread?

Besides we do know some reasons why the settlement was voided in the public knowledge gleaned from the available sources:
- The settlement terms prohibited revealing the "terms and existence" of the settlement.
- The only members of the plaintiffs party who had access to the settlement terms were the plaintiff his wife and the lawyers concerned.
- The settlement was voided because Patrick Snay revealed the existance of the settlement to his daughter, not that she posted about it on Facebook, the latter information revealed the former.
- Patrick Snay has vocally admitted to talking to his daughter claiming he has to tell her 'something', as he could not reveal even the existence of a settlement this was considered a breach.

Statements regarding the reported facts are fair for comment and on the topic, if you disagree stop posting here.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

In that case it is even simpler;
"Dad, what happened with your court case"
"I'm sorry, but I can't say and I would appreciate it if you didn't mention it again"

How is that simple?

Dana Snay was a student at the school in question, she had "psychological issues" of her own relating to her time there. She could still continue to post on Facebook and make her own conclusions as to what happened.
Why the hell should she not mention it again without good reason? And how can good reason be given to her that doesn't breach the T&C.
Lawsuits are stressful, losing a lawsuit is stressful, winning own has a science of relief. This is his fething daughter, she could probably work it out and has presumably no reason not to go to Facebook with her findings if she is unaware of the T&C.

 Orlanth wrote:
The facts of the matter went two different ways so they were not de facto established and are open to discussion. At least one Circuit Court would disagree with your comment according to the evidence presented before their court at the time.
If one of the courts related to the case can see a flaw in Gulliver Preparatory School's case for non payment this means we can give it a shot between ourselves without a hand wave saying that it was 'proven- end of'.
If Patrick Snay had gone to court to contest the non-payment, lost and lost again on appeal you would have a point.

Well, the last court had the (currently) final say, and while their judgement stands it was obviously made on the facts, which they felt legally supported the forfeiture of the settlement monies.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I can in fact feel morally and legally superior.

It is only because you have a legion of wieners backing you up.

Well yea! One the positive the vet checked out the younger wiener from the big dog fight and he's fine. TBone continues to refuse to die, just to spite the world.

"Tbone's so old, he remembers when oil was just dinosaurs."

 Orlanth wrote:
Not the point you were pointing to authority to disavow discussion rather than address the issues.

You claimed that there was no consensus. I am making the point that consensus is immaterial. The last court gave it's ruling, which at present stands

 Orlanth wrote:
Nope sorry. That involves mentioning the existence of the settlement and is therefore in breach of the settlement terms.
We can only go with what we know, but if you have a problem with that why are you on this thread?

Besides we do know some reasons why the settlement was voided in the public knowledge gleaned from the available sources:
- The settlement terms prohibited revealing the "terms and existence" of the settlement.
- The only members of the plaintiffs party who had access to the settlement terms were the plaintiff his wife and the lawyers concerned.
- The settlement was voided because Patrick Snay revealed the existance of the settlement to his daughter, not that she posted about it on Facebook, the latter information revealed the former.
- Patrick Snay has vocally admitted to talking to his daughter claiming he has to tell her 'something', as he could not reveal even the existence of a settlement this was considered a breach.

Statements regarding the reported facts are fair for comment and on the topic, if you disagree stop posting here.

I will post wherever I so choose, thank you very much. If you are making sweeping statements in ignorance of the actual terms of the settlement and are called out for such then the fault lies not with me. If he was told that he was unable to discuss the matter, yet continued to do so and thus violated the terms of the settlement then he is at fault

 Orlanth wrote:

How is that simple?

Dana Snay was a student at the school in question, she had "psychological issues" of her own relating to her time there. She could still continue to post on Facebook and make her own conclusions as to what happened.
Why the hell should she not mention it again without good reason? And how can good reason be given to her that doesn't breach the T&C.
Lawsuits are stressful, losing a lawsuit is stressful, winning own has a science of relief. This is his fething daughter, she could probably work it out and has presumably no reason not to go to Facebook with her findings if she is unaware of the T&C.

She made her own conclusions that the college was paying for her trip to Europe? That is oddly specific. Again, you are making the presumption that she was unaware of the T&C in spite of not knowing what the T&C were

 Orlanth wrote:
Facts aren't facts under law if there is disagreement, there can only be one correct decision, there may be more than one legal resolution over time. The current judgement has legal standing but as the decisions have been uneven it proves there are logical points to be successfully made either way. Thus the ideal that there is no case is not a 'fact' its a supposition.

Show some consistency please. You hide behind the court findings to avoid questions yet make comments of your own while claiming that others cannot do so for lack of information.

Clearly the judges felt that there was sufficient corroboration to come down on the side of the college, so it would seem that the facts were able to support their ruling. I am making arguments based on the facts as reported, and the determinations made by the court. You keep referring to the "T&C" without having seen them.

 Orlanth wrote:
How do you get to do that if you arent even allowed to discuss the existence of the settlement?

Take up the challenge, don't run away. Word it right here.

Give me wording that:
1. Tells people not to talk about a settlement.
2. Doesnt inform the people concerned of the existence of the settlement in any way.
3. Makes sense enough that people lose their curiosity.

You see I dont argue thart Patrick Snay didn't breach his settlement terms, he adnited as such in the press quotes. I argue he couldn't practically keep them and a breach was inevitable.
The question for Dakka here is: Is it valid to agree terms that someone cannot actually keep to, and penalise them when their fail?
If yes he is condemned when he confirmed he didt say 'something' to his daughter, as it was a breach to say anything.
If no then lawyers might argue the terms are unfair.

Nasty one as it can go both ways, and evidently already has from multiple contrary appeal verdicts. Causes like this end up only favouring the lawyers.

How can I argue whether or not someone has breached the settlement terms when the terms are not public knowledge? What sort of Kafkaesque logic are you attempting to apply? I am not privy to the settlement terms. You are not privy to the settlement terms. But guess who was - the father and his legal team. And the judges, who heard the case, and the facts, and applied the law, and ruled in favour of the college.

So you want me to form a response based on the terms and conditions that we don't know? Unlike the father who was provided with the terms, and also had instructed legal counsel to guide him if he so chose. How about "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any settlement, and I expect that there will be no further discussion on this"

What were the terms?
Did the lawyers argue that the terms were unfair? If they did was it held by the court that said terms were fair, or unfair? (I'll give you a clue; the settlement monies were forfeit)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How can I argue whether or not someone has breached the settlement terms when the terms are not public knowledge? What sort of Kafkaesque logic are you attempting to apply? I am not privy to the settlement terms. You are not privy to the settlement terms. But guess who was - the father and his legal team. And the judges, who heard the case, and the facts, and applied the law, and ruled in favour of the college.

It should be obvious to anyone who can read, its not Kafkaesque logic, its just logic.
We know some information which is in fact quite sweeping and very clear: the existence of the T&C cannot be discussed.

We don't need no know the specifics under those circumstances as they are subsets of the circumstances. The settlement terms could have Patrick Snay sewn into a pink tutu and covered in marmalade, don't know don't care, all that matters is that the very fact that a settlement has happened at all was deemed confidential..
Its a bit like being told never to open a box and then complaining you cant understand the instructions because you don't know whats inside,

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So you want me to form a response based on the terms and conditions that we don't know? Unlike the father who was provided with the terms, and also had instructed legal counsel to guide him if he so chose.

Finally he gets it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How about "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any settlement, and I expect that there will be no further discussion on this"

Maybe not. It misses the third section of the problem, providing closure to the discussion.
It was established that the daughter had a vested interest in what was happening, no reason for why discussion would be terminated was given and therefore there is no reason for the daughter to not come to her own conclusions and crow about them.
These settlements don't occur in a vacuum:
Earlier stage- Worried about a case
Later stage - No longer worried about a case, not talking about it, suspiciously richer.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What were the terms?
Did the lawyers argue that the terms were unfair? If they did was it held by the court that said terms were fair, or unfair? (I'll give you a clue; the settlement monies were forfeit)

We don't know who argued what in the two appeals, only that so far it has gone both ways. This is less a case of correct and incorrect as which side runs out of cash to hire lawyers first.

 Orlanth wrote:
Unless well off to begin with it would be hard to conceal an $80K windfall from the immediate family while tapping into it.

We're talking about a headmaster in his mid to late 60s, a guy on a middle class income on the edge of retirement. It's quite sensible to assume that he has a nest egg built up. Adding that $80k to a nest egg of $300k doesn't actually lead to any necessary changes in spending habits. Especially when the lawsuit income is compensation for income he would have earned for working in the next couple of years.

I have no idea what is in my parents bank accounts. They could get a million dollar windfall and I would have no idea. They do ok and really beyond that it really isn't my business or concern to be that involved in their finances. I imagine most people don't let their children do their accounting either, unless their child is a CPA of course. Sure they would lie to their friends and say their son is homeless or something more respectable, but they would still let him do their books.

 Ahtman wrote:
I imagine most people don't let their children do their accounting either, unless their child is a CPA of course. Sure they would lie to their friends and say their son is homeless or something more respectable, but they would still let him do their books.

And I don't do my parent's books. I give some (bad) tax advice occasionally, but that's all.

 sebster wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I imagine most people don't let their children do their accounting either, unless their child is a CPA of course. Sure they would lie to their friends and say their son is homeless or something more respectable, but they would still let him do their books.

And I don't do my parent's books. I give some (bad) tax advice occasionally, but that's all.

Same for my wife. She gave advice on finding a good accountant (which was ignored) but thats it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How about "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any settlement, and I expect that there will be no further discussion on this"

Maybe not. It misses the third section of the problem, providing closure to the discussion.
It was established that the daughter had a vested interest in what was happening, no reason for why discussion would be terminated was given and therefore there is no reason for the daughter to not come to her own conclusions and crow about them.
These settlements don't occur in a vacuum:
Earlier stage- Worried about a case
Later stage - No longer worried about a case, not talking about it, suspiciously richer.

Its simple when you live in a household where people deal with private information, as I would assume would be the case with a headmaster. My parents were both in medicine. Some things were never discussed. You just didn't ask about them. Other things you got told "I can't talk about that. It's private" and you left it at that. Same with myself and my wife. Our jobs mean there are some things you just don't or can't discuss no matter who with.

She might have drawn her own conclusions, but I very much doubt that she would have made the jump of "The case is over and dad seem to have been won" to "We got enough money to go on holiday from them" without being told there was a cash settlement and that it was paying for stuff.

CNN's article on this includes the guy admitting that he told his daughter:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/us/facebook-post-costs-father/

"What happened is that after settlement, my wife and I went in the parking lot, and we had to make some decisions on what we were going to tell my daughter. Because it's very important to understand that she was an intricate part of what was happening.

"She was retaliated against at Gulliver. So she knew we were going to some sort of mediation. She was very concerned about it. Because of what happened at Gulliver, she had quite a few psychological scars which forced me to put her into therapy.

"So there was a period of time that there was an unresolved enclosure for my wife and me. It was very important with her. We understood the confidentiality. So we knew what the restrictions were, yet we needed to tell her something," Snay explained in court documents.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Actually I did once win a settlement and proposed confidentiality to get a higher amount. I did not tell a soul what that number is.. Not my gf, not my best friend, certainly no family members.

It's a nice view from on this horse.

Lots of us have... an NDA is an NDA, I feel sorry for the fella but it is his error, not the daughter's.


OT: I had a friend who had a long legal dispute with a very well known, very rich pop star. The pop star put out a DVD without my friend signing away his rights. i spoke to him right thru the process... but right at the end, to get his money, not only did he have to sign an NDA, it was an NDA in which he agreed to deny there had ever been a legal dispute with the tight-wad rich pop star!. That one made me laugh... you would really need a time-travel machine to stick to that particular NDA.

I feel its the father's error as well. He won the NDA, I'm sure his daughter would know about it too. Its his responsibility to tell those in the know NOT to tell others who are NOT on a need to know basis. Bragging on Facebook to 1200 people for pravy to the case is wrong.

Reading so many American news, I believe the American way to do this would be the father using the daughter for the damanges caused. Oh, throw in a couple grand more for stress caused.

 Polonius wrote:
CNN's article on this includes the guy admitting that he told his daughter:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/us/facebook-post-costs-father/

"What happened is that after settlement, my wife and I went in the parking lot, and we had to make some decisions on what we were going to tell my daughter. Because it's very important to understand that she was an intricate part of what was happening.

"She was retaliated against at Gulliver. So she knew we were going to some sort of mediation. She was very concerned about it. Because of what happened at Gulliver, she had quite a few psychological scars which forced me to put her into therapy.

"So there was a period of time that there was an unresolved enclosure for my wife and me. It was very important with her. We understood the confidentiality. So we knew what the restrictions were, yet we needed to tell her something," Snay explained in court documents.

So the parents dragged their daughter in to personal adult stuff and are trying to blaim someone else.