The Cadets are being sued by a former member for alleged sexual abuse in the 80s

[JimF-LowBari]

6 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Maybe they should stop releasing statements. At this point they are just cringeworthy.  

Thinking of Cadet DNA here. Around 2009 a member of the (business?) staff left and GH released a statement looking for a replacement. First half was basic want ad and rest was stream of consciousness that basically insulted the young lady. If I was thinking of applying for that job the stream of consciousness stuff would make me think twice.. or more…

yeah cringeworthy 

[DWW11]

31 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I think your concern is legit and relevant but would never compel you to speak further if it makes you uncomfortable.

FYI: not following the stipulations of a restricted donation could result in financial penalties or loss of nonprofit status. It's a very serious violation.

Not uncomfortable at all!  Just don’t have anything relevant to add. I have no legal, nonprofit, or drum corps experience to draw from. Other than a small financial interest i am just a life long spectator. 

[greg_orangecounty]

3 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

From what I read in one of court docs judge says  it is going to non-binding arbitration, results of which with either side can reject then going to trial. 

That's too bad.  Non-binding arbitration is usually a complete waste of time and money.   It's expensive, time consuming, and rarely resolves the dispute.  At least one party will not like the results and pursue the case further.  You basically get to pay attorneys twice for arguing the same case.  

And guess which group developed the concept of 'non-binding arbitration'?  

[IllianaLancerContra]

53 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Maybe they should stop releasing statements. At this point they are just cringeworthy.  

The fact that the case has survived to this point suggests that the Court isn’t buying Cadets legal counsel’s arguments.  
 

ETA - It is possible that GH has been deposed (under oath) or will testify (under oath).  Could be interesting to say least.  

Edited November 8, 2023 by IllianaLancerContra

[IllianaLancerContra]

36 minutes ago, greg_orangecounty said:

That's too bad.  Non-binding arbitration is usually a complete waste of time and money.   It's expensive, time consuming, and rarely resolves the dispute.  At least one party will not like the results and pursue the case further.  You basically get to pay attorneys twice for arguing the same case.  

And guess which group developed the concept of 'non-binding arbitration'?  

Yeah - we’ll see.  From what I understand is that if arbitration outcome is acceptable to both parties the record is sealed so info doesn’t become public.  Litigation will be public (if it happens).  This may play into the decision.  The arbitration is scheduled for December.   I wonder if decision to accept or reject arbitration result is before or after Januals?  I suspect DCI (aka the Corps) would prefer to not have a public trial.   But at same time it wouldn’t look good (& may be illegal (RICO organized coverup of SA in DC?)) to be caught pressuring Cadets to accept (assuming they lose arbitration).   

Edited November 8, 2023 by IllianaLancerContra
Clarification

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Which is often the case when things like this happen in a group.

And what struck me in the statement is making sure people know CAE was not running the corps (ok not the name used) when this happen. What legal CYA mandated this?

that it got out on a few social media/chat sites probably made them feel the need to address it. it really wasn't a secret, but no one actually out it out there for the whole wide web to see it

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Thinking of Cadet DNA here. Around 2009 a member of the (business?) staff left and GH released a statement looking for a replacement. First half was basic want ad and rest was stream of consciousness that basically insulted the young lady. If I was thinking of applying for that job the stream of consciousness stuff would make me think twice.. or more…

yeah cringeworthy 

i'll go on the record here and say whatever issues the current Cadets leadership may have, any comparison to the YEA days...hell anything prior to April 2018 is unfair. Yes the corps currently has issues, but even now, trying to do the right things they are now paying for the sins of the past

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

The fact that the case has survived to this point suggests that the Court isn’t buying Cadets legal counsel’s arguments.  
 

ETA - It is possible that GH has been deposed (under oath) or will testify (under oath).  Could be interesting to say least.  

 

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

The fact that the case has survived to this point suggests that the Court isn’t buying Cadets legal counsel’s arguments.  
 

ETA - It is possible that GH has been deposed (under oath) or will testify (under oath).  Could be interesting to say least.  

i don't recall. i trusted my staff. i wasn't involved.

 

answers sure to be heard, and to be honest it was 40 years ago...he may really not remember.

[KVG_DC]

Yeah...my Occam's Razor comment didn't age well at all. 

I guess sometimes it really IS a big coverup of other issues.

sigh.

[Jurassic Lancer]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

that it got out on a few social media/chat sites probably made them feel the need to address it. it really wasn't a secret, but no one actually out it out there for the whole wide web to see it

Again, so much for transparency