IllianaLancerContra Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: I guess my question is, isn’t the truth already out there? Some of the truth. But probably not the whole truth. There is always stuff that we don’t know that we don’t know ($0.02 to Donald Rumsfeld). Edited February 20 by IllianaLancerContra Further pontificating 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 14 minutes ago, ykw said: Of course it's about the money. Not sure this is the case. There were several off-ramps in the process where settlement could have happened when there were more assets available for liquidation than there are now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 26 minutes ago, ykw said: Of course it's about the money. This is absolutely true. Criminal prosecutions are about justice. Civil cases are about money....in every case. When her lawyers discovered the Cadets had no money left, they added DCI on as a codefendent. Her lawyers see a nice payday in this "deep pockets" strategy. Not only that, but these lawyers already have some of "Hopkins Women" lined up to go after DCI next, by their own admission. Edited February 20 by craiga Grammar 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 35 minutes ago, craiga said: This is absolutely true. Criminal prosecutions are about justice. Civil cases are about money....in every case. When her lawyers discovered the Cadets had no money left, they added DCI on as a codefendent. Her lawyers see a nice payday in this "deep pockets" strategy. Not only that, but these lawyers already have some of "Hopkins Women" lined up to go after DCI next, by their own admission. One could argue loss of money forces better behavior so one doesn’t lose any. I fear the chickens are about to come home to roost for DCI. If they lose they will likely have to put up bond to cover award before any appeal can take place. And this will be happening during the 2024 season. How this would impact their working capital for the season is unclear. But they have travel & facilities to pay for before the gate receipts start to flow in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Not sure this is the case. There were several off-ramps in the process where settlement could have happened when there were more assets available for liquidation than there are now. A settlement was almost assuredly offered, and the complainant rejected it. CAE right now doesn't have a pot to pee in, which is why, when the attorney on this suit saw DCI getting added to the SOA case, they decided to follow that path too. But the relationship between DCI and the corps now is very different than it was in 1982, when it could be argued DCI worked for the member corps, rather than having as much oversight as they do today. It'll be a push to make the case that DCI has any liability now for something that happened 40 years ago at an event they had no oversight, knowledge, or control over in the first place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Slingerland said: A settlement was almost assuredly offered, and the complainant rejected it. CAE right now doesn't have a pot to pee in, which is why, when the attorney on this suit saw DCI getting added to the SOA case, they decided to follow that path too. But the relationship between DCI and the corps now is very different than it was in 1982, when it could be argued DCI worked for the member corps, rather than having as much oversight as they do today. It'll be a push to make the case that DCI has any liability now for something that happened 40 years ago at an event they had no oversight, knowledge, or control over in the first place. Ignorance as a defense. Interesting strategy. Seems like society is increasingly not buying this excuse. As an example, just two weeks ago a school shooter’s mom was found guilty of manslaughter. I know no details about it other than the headlines but I see a parallel. In one case the parent held responsible for the crime committed by the child. In Cadets case the umbrella organization (DCI) being sued for the crime of one of its members. Edited February 20 by HockeyDad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 2 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: Edited February 20 by HockeyDad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 June will be an interesting month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneWhoKnows Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 46 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: Ignorance as a defense. Interesting strategy. Seems like society is increasingly not buying this excuse. As an example, just two weeks ago a school shooter’s mom was found guilty of manslaughter. I know no details about it other than the headlines but I see a parallel. In one case the parent held responsible for the crime committed by the child. In Cadets case the umbrella organization (DCI) being sued for the crime of one of its members. It’s just society hungry for lawsuits. If you get into the details of that case regarding the Mother, I think they went way too far in charging her and subsequently a jury finding her guilty. Recklessness? Maybe. Manslaughter in regards to their claims against her? It’s a stretch. And before anyone wants to say “well a jury found her guilty”, a jury verdict isn’t necessarily pure fact, it’s an opinion based on persuasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 4 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: I guess my question is, isn’t the truth already out there? What exactly is this trial going to be about? Is it “we know who did or didn’t do what when, this is only about punishment”? Or is it Cadets and DCI didn’t do what they should have and it needs to be determined what that was? And there still are people out there victim blaming, not that a guilty verdict would change their minds. And if it’s “all about the money” then why are Cadets included if they’re broke? Lot of effort and lawyer fees to get a bunch of old trophies and crap the creditors missed. Edited February 20 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.