Bonfiglio/27th dispute

[Jeff Ream]

11 hours ago, whitedawn said:

1. It isn’t illegal or unethical for non-profits to solicit donations to cover their bills, including judgments. It happens all the time.

2. Please specify these, “additional consequences.” 

3. I don’t think you actually read the opinion if you believe that this is anything other than a trademark dispute. But by all means keep defaming people and see what happens. Also, please note that the overwhelming majority of the judgment was from legal fees. The actual damages were only like $20k.

4. The Cadets organization is no longer a banana republic like it was during the GH era. No one person has the ability to write checks without multiple financial controls being in place, which is standard in almost every organization. I’d suggest you take ten minutes to write in and ask questions about financial controls rather than implying that somebody is gonna steal money. (I’m a financial supporter and was similarly concerned but had a nice chat that cleared everything up.)

or, like I said, continue defaming people in writing, in public, and find out what happens. Up to you. 

May want to read all 42 pages. Misuse of funds is mentioned 

[keystone3ply]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

May want to read all 42 pages. Misuse of funds is mentioned 

Nope; no time to read.  Heisenburg's cooking crystal meth in his 1986 Fleetwood Bounder.  

Edited February 16, 2022 by keystone3ply
cx

[whitedawn]

.

Edited February 21, 2022 by whitedawn

[BitterDCIFan]

18 hours ago, Bob984 said:

Actually, Denise took additional actions on 1/29, since this thread was started, and now expects money to be raised through the foundation, not for scholarships, but to pay for the legal verdict that was a direct result of her actions.  There could be additional consequences for these actions, and someone has pointed out that an additional investigation may be taking place. 

Where did Denise take additional actions? Her name is not on the letters that were posted earlier. She did not solicit and is not aware of the actions by the people to support her and her sister. The letter was vetted by several attorneys that practice non-profit law, Denise is not, or, was not aware of the letter.

On the back of the letter, was Denise's response to her sister's bragging (to a private FB group), bragging how they won the appeal. And it was not because she wanted to sue - she sued because her father, told her and her alone to save the corps name. Does anyone believe that in his last hours on earth, as he spoke to each child privately, the he picked Patty and told her to save the name? Denise responded on the foundation page to inform the supporters of the foundation what had been happening for the past 4 years. It was apparently kept from the supporters, some of which were or are friends with the entire family.

The jury awarded compensation for violating the injunction to not use the name 27th Lancers, of about $5000. The judge took it upon herself to award almost $30,000 for a hotel contract for a reunion in 2017 that was never held. The judge looked at the contract and said yes with no proof of ever having paid the hotel a penny. Patty tried to host a celebration, but everyone abandoned her and she had no choice but to cancel. She never paid the hotel a penny. And there is about $58000 in legal fees. Add in, accrued interest that started the day the first judgment was handed down, plus a few years of non-contact, no court in session time, plus interest accruing during the appeal time - you have over $100,000. 

[Jeff Ream]

8 hours ago, keystone3ply said:

Nope; no time to read.  Heisenburg's cooking crystal meth in his 1986 Fleetwood Bounder.  

law enforcement appreciates the tip

[Jeff Ream]

6 hours ago, whitedawn said:

Please cite the language that you believe shows the appellate panel implying that funds were "misused." Since this was not even an issue at the trial, and the original plaintiffs never even alleged it, this would be an extraordinary act of judicial activism.

There's a big difference between an appellate panel "mentioning" something, which as far as I can tell they did not, and actually making a ruling on something.

The only ruling that was made by the appeals court was that the trial court did not make a reversible error. 

Everything else is merely discussion, sometimes also known as, "dicta".

Also, look - it's totally OK to admit that you (and others) for some reason don't care for Denise Bonfiglio and will use anything about her that is even in the universe of "controversial" as an excuse to bash her and/or the Cadets organization for some bizarre reason.

It's a free country, I guess, but I just don't get it. If this matter didn't have the words, "drum corps" involved with it, no one here would even care! I guarantee that individuals involved with the activity have been hammered with far more egregious legal rulings, especially in the context of divorces. It just so happens that in this case, since there was an appeal, there is an opinion, and since there is an opinion, everybody in the world suddenly becomes Johnny Cochrane.

 

page 8: The jury found that the fundraising methods used and materials sold by the Foundation were intentional interferences with business relations and trademark violations and awarded $1000 and $4000 in damages on those respective Counts (A.I, 8, Docket #58).

page 22 I do not credit Denise's testimony that the 2011 Thanksgiving disagreement involved her suggestion to her siblings that she would start a foundation to promote their father's name and fundraise. Ex. 14 concerns her siblings' disagreement after the Thanksgiving dinner but does not mention any foundation. The family already had another related entity, but defendants chose not to use that organization's name. The individual defendants claim that they started this Foundation to honor the legacy of their parents, but their primary purpose in forming this organization, the 27th Lancer Foundation, Inc., was to make money. I do not credit much of Denise's testimony, including that she had no intent to compete with the Corps when she started the Foundation. At least Denise realized that, when you have a nonprofit and you make money, you can use that money to pay off some of your personal expenses. Without being honest with the Court in August 2019, the defendants sought a continuance of the trial, though they really · were not forthcoming that they were going to ·the DCI meeting.

pages 26-28 deal with deceptive marketing...not good. especially the bottom of page 28.

on page 29: The Foundation's 8 - 28 - Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2020-P-0863 Filed: 12/2/2020 10:54 AM revenue in 2013 was $12,871.00 (mostly, if not only, from selling T-shirts, pens and other merchandise) with $5,861.00 in expenses. In 2013, the Foundation paid two $1,000.00 scholarships. In 2014, though no scholarships were awarded, the Foundation received $11,362.00 in revenue. In 2015, the Foundation received $14,045.00 in revenue and awarded \ two $1,000.00 scholarships. In 2016, the Foundation received $11,425.00 in revenue and awarded two $1,000.00 scholarships.

 

thats a whole lotta cash...for $6000 in scholarships

page 30 The deceitful way the defendants took advantage of the Corps, falsely marketing to the plaintiff's alumni and community for the defendants' benefit is unfair and deceptive and violates Ch. 93A

there's a whole lot more fascinating stuff on pages 32 to the end. 

 

so per the court, they used deceptive marketing to raise all that cash ( I am not sure if it continued past the dates in the legal docs)...and paid out $6k in scholarships and a one time listing of expenses of $5861. so thats an outlay of $11,861 versus listed revenues of $49,703. all while their mission, mentioned multiple times over the 42 page document was to raise funds for scholarships. so 12% of the funds raised went to the stated mission. when you add in the only listed expenses only 24% went to its mission and related expenses....and one of those years no scholarships were awarded despite raised over $11,000.

 

so to the lay person...what would you say that looks like? 76% of the funds raised went to.....finals tickets and trvael? hotel? Indy Bar tabs? Red sox tickets? dinner at the Bull and Finch?

[Tru27th]

I tried to get on the Foundation Facebook page, it’s CLASSIFICATION IS  SECRET

NOW WHY would a Public Charity be a SECRET group on Facebook?

I read hours of those files dating back to 2017.  I was at the 2012 Banquet and on the Committee.  Patty and George did an excellent job of Honoring their Parents and the Organization.  It was a great time.  Until the Foundation got up and did a POWERPOINT Presentation on what they had done.  People were confused, why 2 Organizations, and why were rumors going around that night about what a ###### job Patty and George did.  I couldn’t understand it until I spoke to another member of the Committee who was a good friend of Janine and Denise and was betraying Patty and George, and she told me the Foundation was taking over. 
in 2016 Patty and a few other of us got together to plan the 50th Reunion like we had done SO many times before, and heard rumblings of the Foundation running the 50th.  Patty contacted Denise to ask what was going on, she lied and said she didn’t know what we were talking about and to F…off.  After several attempts She and George contacted and retained a Lawyer, evidence gathered and a Cease and Desist issued by The 27th Lancers and the Superior Court but not before they both were deleted and blocked from the Foundation page at 7 am and Janine posted that THEY were running the Corps Reunion.  Never got permission to use the Name 27th Lancers, and now they were stealing the Reunion too.  We kept advertising the CORPS Reunion but the damage was done by the SMEAR campaign by The Foundation.  We Alumni didn’t know what was going on.  We just wanted to see our 27th Family and have some fun like we had done throughout our existence but The Smear Campaign was done quite well and saturated our Alumni. 
By 2017 a lot of Alumni were told that Patty and George had taken money and were picking and choosing which Alumni could come to the Reunion and other ridiculous and untrue lies.  I was on both Committees, none of it was true.  But what was true was that the Foundation was hijacking the Alumni and in the middle of a Hostile takeover. The Foundation lost in court because they LIED.  They spend 76% of what they take in on Personal expenses.  
Plane fares, rental cars, food and bar bills and “Other expenses”.  It’s all in black and white and Public Knowledge if you take the time to read. 
But what truly ANGERS me is people like Bitter DCI Fan spewing venom and talking about the 27th Lancers and George and Patsy’s Legacy like they actually care.   CLUELESS about the TRUTH, but willing to come on here and attempt to destroy their children and Legacy.  The Foundation got caught, plain and simple. 5 Superior Court Judges and 12 jurors  and 3 appearances in court ALL Unanimously came back with the same conclusion.  GUILTY of deceptive business practices, GUILTY of Copyright Infringement and FRAUD.  

You can’t ask people to believe that they were legitimately trying to raise $60,000

when they have spent twice that on 

Personal expenses that they were NOT entitled to.

A Public Charity has OPEN BOOKS, ACCOUNTABILITY.  
Where is Theirs? 10 years All that money that Alumni members gave them Lovingly to Honor George and Patsy and they spent 76% of it on themselves.  
They Disgraced their Parents and their Legacy   
You can’t hide from the TRUTH.  

The Truth has NO versions.
 Not even for You Bitter DCI Fan.  

Crawl back Under that rock and find something else to be Bitter about.  
COWARD with a keyboard.  

[Bob984]

5 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

page 8: The jury found that the fundraising methods used and materials sold by the Foundation were intentional interferences with business relations and trademark violations and awarded $1000 and $4000 in damages on those respective Counts (A.I, 8, Docket #58).

page 22 I do not credit Denise's testimony that the 2011 Thanksgiving disagreement involved her suggestion to her siblings that she would start a foundation to promote their father's name and fundraise. Ex. 14 concerns her siblings' disagreement after the Thanksgiving dinner but does not mention any foundation. The family already had another related entity, but defendants chose not to use that organization's name. The individual defendants claim that they started this Foundation to honor the legacy of their parents, but their primary purpose in forming this organization, the 27th Lancer Foundation, Inc., was to make money. I do not credit much of Denise's testimony, including that she had no intent to compete with the Corps when she started the Foundation. At least Denise realized that, when you have a nonprofit and you make money, you can use that money to pay off some of your personal expenses. Without being honest with the Court in August 2019, the defendants sought a continuance of the trial, though they really · were not forthcoming that they were going to ·the DCI meeting.

pages 26-28 deal with deceptive marketing...not good. especially the bottom of page 28.

on page 29: The Foundation's 8 - 28 - Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2020-P-0863 Filed: 12/2/2020 10:54 AM revenue in 2013 was $12,871.00 (mostly, if not only, from selling T-shirts, pens and other merchandise) with $5,861.00 in expenses. In 2013, the Foundation paid two $1,000.00 scholarships. In 2014, though no scholarships were awarded, the Foundation received $11,362.00 in revenue. In 2015, the Foundation received $14,045.00 in revenue and awarded \ two $1,000.00 scholarships. In 2016, the Foundation received $11,425.00 in revenue and awarded two $1,000.00 scholarships.

 

thats a whole lotta cash...for $6000 in scholarships

page 30 The deceitful way the defendants took advantage of the Corps, falsely marketing to the plaintiff's alumni and community for the defendants' benefit is unfair and deceptive and violates Ch. 93A

there's a whole lot more fascinating stuff on pages 32 to the end. 

 

so per the court, they used deceptive marketing to raise all that cash ( I am not sure if it continued past the dates in the legal docs)...and paid out $6k in scholarships and a one time listing of expenses of $5861. so thats an outlay of $11,861 versus listed revenues of $49,703. all while their mission, mentioned multiple times over the 42 page document was to raise funds for scholarships. so 12% of the funds raised went to the stated mission. when you add in the only listed expenses only 24% went to its mission and related expenses....and one of those years no scholarships were awarded despite raised over $11,000.

 

so to the lay person...what would you say that looks like? 76% of the funds raised went to.....finals tickets and trvael? hotel? Indy Bar tabs? Red sox tickets? dinner at the Bull and Finch?

Exactly what I read.....far, far more than a squabble over a trademark name........the judges made their decision........but other than being out $$$, the individual remains the CEO of a major corps.

[whitedawn]

.

Edited February 21, 2022 by whitedawn

[whitedawn]

.

Edited February 21, 2022 by whitedawn