Jump to content

Bonfiglio/27th dispute


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, whitedawn said:

The court ruled that the trademark had been infringed and the appeals court agreed. Literally nothing else they wrote or didn’t write matters. 
 

Please remind me what this - a business dispute - has to do with a wholly unrelated organization?

Look, if you don’t like Denise and want her to get fired, just say so. Going out on these limbs to create the illusion that she’s some kind of bad actor is a bad and embarrassing look for you. I guess if you can’t come up with another colorable reason to fire her - after all, The Cadets organization is very solid and the kids are very well cared for and educated - then you throw wet noodles at the wall and wait for them to stick. This one isn’t going to stick, as anybody without an agenda can easily see. 

It's all about demonstrating questionable ethics involving the running of a scholarship foundation.  The judge also pointed this out.   You disagree with a differing opinion, and that's your perogative.  The end.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whitedawn said:

Look, if you don’t like Denise and want her to get fired, just say so. 

🙄 Having all these flashbacks of “you’re against GH because you don’t like him”.  🤮

Edited by JimF-LowBari
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 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.

 

Counselor - 

I'm not a lawyer (but I have played one on television), so please correct me if I am interpreting this incorrectly.  

This was a civil litigation.

I think if If there were criminal acts that happened regarding the dispute, then the appropriate prosecutor would need to file criminal charges & a whole new legal process would begin.  Is this correct?

And as an aside, I suspect George & Patsy B. would not be very happy with this whole situation.

Edited by IllianaLancerContra
further pontification
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whitedawn said:

First of all, please link this 42 page document. It is not the appellate decision, so I’m wondering what it is. 
 

Secondly, you’re trying to say that something illegal happened because of the high overhead ratio that the organization had. Nothing illegal happened. High overhead ratios are very common in micro enterprises like this. If you don’t like what management spent the money on, your remedy is to not donate to the organization. 
 

Again, you’re really grasping at straws to “get” Denise for some reason passing my understanding. If your main concern truly is that Denise Bonfiglio is going to steal money from The Cadets, let me put your mind at ease, which you could easily also do with an email: the organization has typical financial controls in place internally, where all expenditures require dual authorization. Also, for the first time maybe ever, the organization has outside auditors looking at every transaction. 
 

So, you need not worry your head about those poor Cadets having money stolen, ok?

Now, if your actual reason for this fishing expedition is because you are a petty person who just doesn’t like the woman, this is an epic failure because she did nothing wrong. You gotta huddle up with your bros and come up with a better plan. 

Send me your email I’ll gladly send you or anyone the pdf. 
 

and I’ll summarize an earlier thought: when it comes to leadership decisions and quality outside of Litz, I’m not sure they’ve chosen wisely. Wasn’t Denise a big backer of an SCV former director for whom rumors have swirled for years also?

drum corps is in an era where leadership needs to appear pristine. And for years now, The Cadets seem to have more clouds around them than not.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whitedawn said:

The court ruled that the trademark had been infringed and the appeals court agreed. Literally nothing else they wrote or didn’t write matters. 
 

Please remind me what this - a business dispute - has to do with a wholly unrelated organization?

Look, if you don’t like Denise and want her to get fired, just say so. Going out on these limbs to create the illusion that she’s some kind of bad actor is a bad and embarrassing look for you. I guess if you can’t come up with another colorable reason to fire her - after all, The Cadets organization is very solid and the kids are very well cared for and educated - then you throw wet noodles at the wall and wait for them to stick. This one isn’t going to stick, as anybody without an agenda can easily see. 

I don’t know her well enough to like her or not. But being in business with a company in the past that made many stupid decisions and churned through several leaders in a short time, I fully understand reputational risk and the damage it can cause. After all….where’s YEA now?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

 

and I’ll summarize an earlier thought: when it comes to leadership decisions and quality outside of Litz, I’m not sure they’ve chosen wisely. Wasn’t Denise a big backer of an SCV former director for whom rumors have swirled for years also?

 

The guy that got dragged on their alumni forum for being drunk?  That guy?  I heard AG read him for filth, like he was late to count 1 in her flag block.  Straight up went in on his "leadership qualities".

Do you have evidence DB was a "big backer"?  Have you considered she may also be the reason he's no longer around?  She did work in insurance, so the concept of de-risking would not be new to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2022 at 12:01 PM, Jeff Ream said:

Send me your email I’ll gladly send you or anyone the pdf. 
 

and I’ll summarize an earlier thought: when it comes to leadership decisions and quality outside of Litz, I’m not sure they’ve chosen wisely. Wasn’t Denise a big backer of an SCV former director for whom rumors have swirled for years also?

drum corps is in an era where leadership needs to appear pristine. And for years now, The Cadets seem to have more clouds around them than not.

.

Edited by whitedawn
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...