Jump to content

A Great Article on The Cadets


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

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.  

Yep, I’ve brought up before guy I knew whose store was caught in a sweep by the state. 8 owners charged but state only really interested in 2 main culprits. Those 2 kept appealing before trial and all 8 had to show up for every hearing with their lawyers (ka ching). Finally the 6 copped a plea bargain of probation so they wouldn’t go broke. Not having a chance to clear your name sucked but losing the house would have sucked more

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

14 hours ago, cjthekid said:

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.

Yes, nearly all plaintiffs file civil suits to get money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, ykw said:

Yes, nearly all plaintiffs file civil suits to get money.

I don’t think that was ever in question. The operative word in their post being “settlement.” (Versus, say, “judgement.”)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, year1buick said:

I don’t think that was ever in question. The operative word in their post being “settlement.” (Versus, say, “judgement.”)

And it's not in question that a judgment against the Cadets wouldn't get the plaintiff any money.   The corps is broke.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ykw said:

And it's not in question that a judgment against the Cadets wouldn't get the plaintiff any money.   The corps is broke.  

 

Hence the discussion re adding DCI as a defendant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Unless the plaintiff has some heavy evidence proving that DCI was aware of the events and took no action, DCI would be dismissed from the case. If that were the case, and it seems like it might be seeing as we now have that dismissal notice for garfield, it’s more probable that they are hoping DCI will settle out of court and before the trial.  Nobody is questioning anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Development to this trial. DCI Has filed their "Answer to Complaint", wherein they deny all claims made by the plaintiff relating to DCI.   And Interestingly, and I don't know if I have read this same phrase in any of the other documents I've read, they seem to be claiming that the case itself holds no ground because retroactively extending statute of limitations is in violation to the constitution of both the USA, and New Jersey. 

 

bKtT81710656694.pngFMdjq1710656780.png

Hopefully this image helps y'all understand more about the case a little.  

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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