Jeff Ream Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 5 hours ago, cjthekid said: Uh a little. there’s a ton of documents. I suppose the important ones would be the summons issued to DCI in december of last year. And the docket which schedules the the settlement conference for april. If there’s something specific you have in mind let me know. i'll have to consult people with enough legal knowledge to know what to ask for or wait for updates to go public Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 51 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: i know of one MM last year now contracted to SCV. Yes, and we have alot of last year's Cadets here at Boston now as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAYGO Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 hour ago, craiga said: Yes, and we have alot of last year's Cadets here at Boston now as well. Boston and Bloo each have 9 former Cadets. SCV has 14. Crown has 18. According to my son, there are 60 that found a new home for this summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneWhoKnows Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: from what i remember seeing, that place has it's own issues with the city Not actually. It was a county zoning officer who felt the need to take frivolous positions on codes and hit the sports park with it. It’s all been resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 15 hours ago, cjthekid said: The dismissal reads only as Garfield Cadets. Given that CAE is a third party defendant I would assume that by dismissing the primary party, all other parties would also be dismissed. However the plaintiff has 60 days to fix this. The Settlement meeting is in april so there’s a possibility that the prosecution uses this as a bargaining chip, but I’m not a lawyer so I’m really not sure. I’ll send the dismissal notice in a bit. Also keep in mind that DCI is now a defendant. I wonder if plaintiffs lawyers have realized that even if they prevail, CAE has nothing that can be used to pay damages. DCI however, has some cash in the bank. I suspect much of that cash is already committed to 2024 season operations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjthekid Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Also keep in mind that DCI is now a defendant. I wonder if plaintiffs lawyers have realized that even if they prevail, CAE has nothing that can be used to pay damages. DCI however, has some cash in the bank. I suspect much of that cash is already committed to 2024 season operations. Agreed on that front. The fact that DCI has been added to the suit this late in the process makes me suspicious that they may be just fishing for some type of settlement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 That's not open to question - DCI was added because they're the only ones who have a pot to puke in. They're also highly unlikely to be found liable in any way, given the reported facts of the claim. If there's additional info that shows a direct or implied connection between DCI and the Finalist corps in 1982 regarding the hiring and managing of instructional staffers, then that's a different thing altogether. But I wouldn't count on any such info coming to light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 3 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: Not actually. It was a county zoning officer who felt the need to take frivolous positions on codes and hit the sports park with it. It’s all been resolved. so then another lawsuit if they can't find a way back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjthekid Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 I would say we shouldn't put too much thought into the whole Tennessee thing. I have a few reliable sources suggesting that it was just a corps director blowing hot air. Secondly, if it were to happen, it wouldn't be "the cadets", it would be another pre-existing corps adopting the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 7 hours ago, Slingerland said: That's not open to question - DCI was added because they're the only ones who have a pot to puke in. They're also highly unlikely to be found liable in any way, given the reported facts of the claim. If there's additional info that shows a direct or implied connection between DCI and the Finalist corps in 1982 regarding the hiring and managing of instructional staffers, then that's a different thing altogether. But I wouldn't count on any such info coming to light. 2022 SoA & the DCI post hopacalyptic situation may well be different. ETA - And regarding Cadets lawsuit- even if plaintiff doesn’t prevail it is still costing DCI $ for legal fees, which during discovery (which has likely already happened) & trial go up quickly. So, in a sense, DCI has already been dinged. Edited March 12 by IllianaLancerContra Further pontificating 1 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.