Jump to content

George Hopkins Charged with two Counts Sexual Assault


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lance said:

what is this thread?

 

4 minutes ago, Lance said:

what is this thread?

Lance, they were talking about George always asking for money. How they raised money. I chipped in my current day idea of how a corps could raise money and then I added one of the ideas I gave George on how the activity could further embrace technology... and even he balked at that idea.  Thread is still about Hopkins! No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK... these past few posts....

W T F ????????

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lancer79 said:

... im to understand that DCI owns the rights, audio and video, to the corps 11 minutes on the field....

Incorrect. The Copyright holders retain all ownership rights. Corps and DCI only pay for permission to use, arrange, perform, record; and those are specific permissions not ownerships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lancer79 said:

... I have no idea what transpired between he and the women, but did observe how he came across as rude and insensitive and hurtful with his words, he only saw value in what he was focused on, himself and YEA and the Cadets. He does realize this was a big miss on his part. I am hopeful. 

Don't forget, the charges made that are being prosecuted are ONLY about what happened to two women...only the two women still within the statute of limitations. None of the rest of this has anything at all to do with the upcoming trial. The rest of the Hoppy/YEA stuff is irrelevant in the legal sense. Of course, it plays a good part in the public discussion here and elsewhere, but it is not what he is being prosecuted for. Testimony by some of the earlier victims may play a role in establishing past behavior, as happened in the Cosby case, but the actual case is only for what he is alleged to have done to the two women he has been charged with assaulting. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Stu said:

Incorrect. The Copyright holders retain all ownership rights. Corps and DCI only pay for permission to use, arrange, perform, record; and those are specific permissions not ownerships.

Ok, it’s my understanding the livestream viewing rights are for DCI to grant/sell, such as Flo-Marching has an agreement. But if a corps itself wanted to place cameras in its members and sell this live viewing to subscribers/virtual members... that would not be allowed. I could be wrong, I just thought that was how DCI sanctioned shows rolled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

Nothings ever been his fault. Look at post finals comments aimed at judging. Look at why people don’t like him. 

I do not deny that at all. Just stating that at this point in time, there is no way he would EVER admit to anything remotely related to the case, and I would not use that against him in this context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MikeD said:

Don't forget, the charges made that are being prosecuted are ONLY about what happened to two women...only the two women still within the statute of limitations. None of the rest of this has anything at all to do with the upcoming trial. The rest of the Hoppy/YEA stuff is irrelevant in the legal sense. Of course, it plays a good part in the public discussion here and elsewhere, but it is not what he is being prosecuted for. Testimony by some of the earlier victims may play a role in establishing past behavior, as happened in the Cosby case, but the actual case is only for what he is alleged to have done to the two women he has been charged with assaulting. 

Forgot this case was two women. But if GH testifies in his defense (probably not a good move) and says he never harrassed anyone they could be called as rebuttal witnesses I believe. Supposedly reason why Sandusky never testified. If JS would have said no abuse in his house then one of his own kids was ready to testify to rebut that.

i forget are all the other women past time limit or just trying these cases at the present 

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

5 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Would like to have an expert in business look at Cadets resources and determine how much the severance affects corps ability to continue in the future. Also IIRC the $600K or so in back pay, etc didn’t come out until the suit began. Smells like pay back to me.

finally there have been other long term corps directors. What did they get when they left or what were they paid to begin with 

George tried to resign under the old board. If that holds true, it is possible the severance package is legit. The new admin/board fired him, stating that there was no agreed-upon resignation. That is the heart of George's suit...trying to get his resignation to stand. If fired for cause, he gets nothing....and likes it.  ($1 to Willy Wonka).

As to other corps directors...FWIW George was the head of a much larger organization than just the Cadets, so a direct comparison to other directors is not really relevant.

  • Thanks 2
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...