A Great Article on The Cadets

[TheOneWhoKnows]

6 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

If that is case w/ Cadets, it seems rather late in the process as this is several years in, with a court date set.  I wonder if it is dismissed w/r/t Garfield Cadets as defendant, but ongoing for The Cadets and/or DCI?  Or once it is dismissed against one defendant, does it automatically apply to all defendants?  I suspect that we’ll find out in the next few days.  

 

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Makes me wonder if plaintiff’s lawyer realized that even if they win, there won’t be $ for him to collect his fee from.  
 

Or maybe it is just a housekeeping move by the Court & we see a trial in June.  

This was my thought based on the preview of the document so I could see. It only named the party “The Garfield Cadets”. After thinking about it, since the judge ruled CAE is the same organization, it would be a clean up tactic to remove parties that aren’t actually applicable at this sense.

Could that somehow save the plaintiff money? With court costs or attorney fees by reducing the amount of parties? Not sure. 

I’m tempted to just pay for the service to go to all the docs and see. 

[IllianaLancerContra]

14 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

 

This was my thought based on the preview of the document so I could see. It only named the party “The Garfield Cadets”. After thinking about it, since the judge ruled CAE is the same organization, it would be a clean up tactic to remove parties that aren’t actually applicable at this sense.

Could that somehow save the plaintiff money? With court costs or attorney fees by reducing the amount of parties? Not sure. 

I’m tempted to just pay for the service to go to all the docs and see. 

If it does go to trial, I hope someone with a Drum Corps background attends & reports what happened.  I wonder if Tricia Nadolny plans to attend ?  This is within the sphere she covers & she was at the GH plea & sentencing.  

[Sh0uldN0t]

16 hours ago, rjohn76 said:

Not a lawyer or attorney in real life, but have been involved with civil suits before as part of my career job.  Cases being dismissed for "lack of prosecution" tend to tie back to the plaintiff not wanting to move forward with the case, or missing required court dates/filings.  In my case, it's because the evidence presented by our company's legal team during the discovery phase makes it highly unlikely that the plaintiff will win (think fraudulent slip/fall cases in a retail environment that are clearly captured on CCTV).  Once the plaintiff and/or their legal team sees the trajectory of the case, they abandon the case and subsequently miss court dates or filing requirements.

I suspect it means there was no one (or no entity) whom the plaintiffs could serve with the suit. In any case, this event by itself has no bearing on any other aspect of the action. 

[rjohn76]

Did a little digging and this is the sixth time that the "LACK OF PROSECUTION DISMISSAL WARNING" has been recorded under case actions.  The previous occasions were on 2/13/21, 4/17/21, 10/02/21, 12/10/22, & 2/11/23.  Given that, and briefly reading the rules cited in the notice, this would seem to be more of an automatic formality that occurs when certain actions/proceedings don't occur over a specific period of time.  Perhaps nothing to really read much into at this point?

 

[JimF-LowBari]

2 hours ago, rjohn76 said:

Did a little digging and this is the sixth time that the "LACK OF PROSECUTION DISMISSAL WARNING" has been recorded under case actions.  The previous occasions were on 2/13/21, 4/17/21, 10/02/21, 12/10/22, & 2/11/23.  Given that, and briefly reading the rules cited in the notice, this would seem to be more of an automatic formality that occurs when certain actions/proceedings don't occur over a specific period of time.  Perhaps nothing to really read much into at this point?

 

Just googled the meaning of the term and could mean just about anything. But 6 times over 3 years? 🤷🏻

[IllianaLancerContra]

17 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

 

This was my thought based on the preview of the document so I could see. It only named the party “The Garfield Cadets”. After thinking about it, since the judge ruled CAE is the same organization, it would be a clean up tactic to remove parties that aren’t actually applicable at this sense.

Could that somehow save the plaintiff money? With court costs or attorney fees by reducing the amount of parties? Not sure. 

I’m tempted to just pay for the service to go to all the docs and see. 

I fully support you paying for the ability to see all the documents.  
Let us know all the details. 
😎

[Tim K]

17 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

If it does go to trial, I hope someone with a Drum Corps background attends & reports what happened.  I wonder if Tricia Nadolny plans to attend ?  This is within the sphere she covers & she was at the GH plea & sentencing.  

I just did a Google search to see what Ms. Nadonly is doing these days. This wouldn’t fit what she’s doing now. Also, I don’t think this story has enough traction to get attention, especially in a year of an election in a divided nation where pundits get more attention than reporters. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case as much as the ever changing priorities of journalists and news agencies. 

[Tim K]

On 3/9/2024 at 9:22 AM, Terri Schehr said:

I do.  Hair raising.  But they weren’t the only ones, by no means. 

I knew someone who marched with Garfield Cadets from 78 or 79 to 82. He went to school in Boston and we had a mutual friend. His story was not that different from those who marched in other corps who move up in placement. He loved the family atmosphere of when he first marched. He’s my major source of the miracle in 1980 where the threat of not finishing the season and certainly not making finals was real and then finding themselves in 10th. 81 things began to change. He struggled in 82. New instructors were brutal, volunteers and longtime members pushed out, and the atmosphere changed. He was a year or two older than me and I don’t recall if he aged out. He was always loyal to Cadets, never spoke about wild parties, and his comments only came when the discussion went to George Zingali and the influx of former 27th Lancers. 

Looking back at that time, it did seem that for many corps, the harder you worked, the harder you partied. For some, partying hard is why they didn’t make finals but that’s another story. Whether that happened with Cadets, I can’t say but whatever the corps, underage marching members, in the case of the young woman a high school student, with college age kids and adult instructors all at the same party is a recipe for disaster, especially when 1983 became 1984.

Edited March 10 by Tim K

[corps8294]

After all these years it's finally coming out that a some of the top corps in the activity were more of a hot mess than we've all been led to believe. The two things that seemed well known with the Cadets but never discussed were GH being a tyrant and an activity wide "my way is the only way" bully and the money issues. I'm still not convinced about SCV having righted their ship, either. 

[scheherazadesghost]

1 hour ago, Tim K said:

I just did a Google search to see what Ms. Nadonly is doing these days. This wouldn’t fit what she’s doing now. Also, I don’t think this story has enough traction to get attention, especially in a year of an election in a divided nation where pundits get more attention than reporters. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case as much as the ever changing priorities of journalists and news agencies. 

When I reached out to her, I got the impression she was not on the beat anymore. She redirected me to local news outlets.