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

[cixelsyd]

30 minutes ago, MikeN said:

The suit is against both the org and 10 individuals (I saw someone on Reddit allege it was the BoD members at the time, including Hopkins).  I'm assuming Ms. W. is alleging that both the individual actors *and* the system they created (the corps) are at fault.  

Got it.  But comparing this lawsuit with the GH cases... it seems like actual predators are far more able to negotiate a slap-on-the-wrist, while it may be the death penalty for the institutions they corrupted.

[scheherazadesghost]

10 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Got it.  But comparing this lawsuit with the GH cases... it seems like actual predators are far more able to negotiate a slap-on-the-wrist, while it may be the death penalty for the institutions they corrupted.

Are the institutions innocent? By all accounts, it takes a village to protect/enable a predator. It takes a bigger village to protect more than one over long swaths of time. Was there literally no one at any of these institutions that could do anything?

[TheOneWhoKnows]

14 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Then someone explain to me why that is.  Does GH hire better lawyers than the Cadets?  Or are deeper pockets a curse that transcends all else?

Gotta go where the money is 

[cixelsyd]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Are the institutions innocent? 

I do not recall saying they were.  Checking again... no, never said that.  Just wishing that accountability could be in proper proportion to culpability.

[TheOneWhoKnows]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Are the institutions innocent? By all accounts, it takes a village to protect/enable a predator. It takes a bigger village to protect more than one over long swaths of time. Was there literally no one at any of these institutions that could do anything?

I get the sentiment of the institution harboring the perpetrator. But in this situation, is the organization now the same organization as it was then? It isn’t. Board isn’t the same, staff isn’t the same. 

[dbc03]

Had the corps been held responsible and shut down after the GH bomb dropped I would have mourned the loss but it would have been hard to argue against. The board and director and likely others at the time were all culpable for a pattern of abuse.

This is harder to come to terms with though. I aged out almost 20 years ago and this happened before I was born. It's doubtful that anyone culpable for this incident is still involved with the corps in any way. This isn't going to punish anyone other than innocents and isn't going to protect any future kids from a similar incident. There is nothing that the corps could have done in my entire lifetime to prevent this outcome.

[craiga]

This is true, and part of the intent behind statutes of limitations to begin with.

[scheherazadesghost]

So, there is a central argument of whether Cadets has moved beyond the culture of abuse or not.

The plaintiff claims they have not. My observations from the last two years also indicate the activity, as a whole, has not. 

Others here and elsewhere say they have. Many will point to crucial improvements at Cadets and other orgs.

Guess this is why there are two major lawsuits brewing.

[dbc03]

42 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

So, there is a central argument of whether Cadets has moved beyond the culture of abuse or not.

The plaintiff claims they have not.

The lawsuit makes no mention of anything other than the events that took place in the early 80s. There is no claim by the plaintiff that the corps has not moved beyond the culture of abuse.

If there is evidence that they haven't then I fully support that being shared and the responsible parties being held accountable, but a 40 year old case isn't it.

[scheherazadesghost]

14 minutes ago, dbc03 said:

The lawsuit makes no mention of anything other than the events that took place in the early 80s. There is no claim by the plaintiff that the corps has not moved beyond the culture of abuse.

If there is evidence that they haven't then I fully support that being shared and the responsible parties being held accountable, but a 40 year old case isn't it.

I should've corrected myself to say "the plaintiff implies" as per another comment in this thread. Perhaps my understanding of our legal system is lacking, or it has been explained already... but why sue the organizations of not to implicate them in the crimes? Genuine question.

A 40 year old case does, however,  help us continue to reconstruct a clearer picture of activity-wide wrongdoings over time though. Now entering the permanent public record. I think it's safe to remind all that producing the hard evidence that will accurately implicate everyone is rare, especially within a single case. But two cases at the same time, with that kind of time span, should be sending shockwaves right now.

I wouldn't have stepped forward myself, this much after the fact, if I weren't concerned about ongoing safeguarding efforts. I can't speak for others, but it wouldn't surprise me if that sentiment was shared by others.