dbc03 Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 1 minute ago, scheherazadesghost said: 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. She is seeking damages for the abuse (rightfully so) and the organization is one of the few entities that has assets that could be awarded. It has nothing to do with the organization as it stands today. There's no happy outcome or justice here, either she wins and an organization that is now completely removed from the incident is punished or she loses and the victim does not get reimbursed for the damages she suffered. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 (edited) 15 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said: 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. I believe the Defendant is claiming the Cadets have moved beyond the culture of abuse. And looks like so far the judge has said…. Uhhhh, no. That’s why the case continues. I don’t think the plaintiff has said anything about this. Why would they? It’s the defendant’s argument not the plaintiff. Edited November 15, 2023 by HockeyDad 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 4 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: I believe the Defendant is claiming the Cadets have moved beyond the culture of abuse. And looks like so far the judge has said…. Uhhhh, no. That’s why the case continues. I don't believe this is an accurate description of the legal proceedings. The Cadets have claimed that they are not responsible for the crimes committed because they are no longer part of the umbrella organization that the crimes happened under. It appears the judge did not accept that particular argument. Neither the judge nor the Cadets made claims regarding whether there is a current "culture of abuse" because it's completely irrelevant to the case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 3 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: 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. but the corps name is. and thats where i believe the issue lays Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 47 minutes ago, dbc03 said: I don't believe this is an accurate description of the legal proceedings. The Cadets have claimed that they are not responsible for the crimes committed because they are no longer part of the umbrella organization that the crimes happened under. It appears the judge did not accept that particular argument. Neither the judge nor the Cadets made claims regarding whether there is a current "culture of abuse" because it's completely irrelevant to the case. agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 (edited) Except this part of the case filing, under Third Count, Punitive Damages is pretty clear: "These acts and omissions by the Garfield Cadets and YEA constitute a wanton and willful disregard of the safety of the members of the public and the minors in the care of Garfield Cadets, including Plaintiff." But the argument is that was the past? I'd like to think the span between 2018 and now was cast enough for a sea change, activity-wide, but from my distant seat that's not what I've observed, despite incalculable efforts. I continue to welcome info that refutes this. Case filing seems to be using Garfield Cadets, Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps, YEA, YEA!, and CAE interchangeably and intentionally based on the Factual Background: Parties section. No? Edited November 15, 2023 by scheherazadesghost typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 (edited) 19 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said: Except this part of the case filing, under Third Count, Punitive Damages is pretty clear: "These acts and omissions by the Garfield Cadets and YEA constitute a wanton and willful disregard of the safety of the members of the public and the minors in the care of Garfield Cadets, including Plaintiff." But the argument is that we the past? I'd like to think the span between 2018 and now was cast enough for a sea change, activity-wide, but from my distant seat that's not what I've observed, despite incalculable efforts. I continue to welcome info that refutes this. Case filing seems to be using Garfield Cadets, Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps, YEA, YEA!, and CAE interchangeably and intentionally based on the Factual Background: Parties section. No? "These acts and omissions" are specifically the ones listed in the lawsuit, not any others that may have occurred. If the lawsuit was about events other than the ones that occurred in relation to the plaintiff they would have been specifically mentioned, especially since the actions of GH have been well documented at this point. If there had never in the past 40 years been another instance of abuse related to The Cadets the text of this lawsuit would stay entirely the same. Edited November 15, 2023 by dbc03 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 19 minutes ago, dbc03 said: "These acts and omissions" are specifically the ones listed in the lawsuit, not any others that may have occurred. If the lawsuit was about events other than the ones that occurred in relation to the plaintiff they would have been specifically mentioned, especially since the actions of GH have been well documented at this point. If there had never in the past 40 years been another instance of abuse related to The Cadets the text of this lawsuit would stay entirely the same. I appreciate your clarifying the strictness of the language in the case. I'll acquiesce to say I'm clearly trying to draw some connections here regarding motivation like everyone else. I'm merely hypothesizing that perhaps plaintiff isn't merely trying to get money out of Cadets or destroy them, but like most in her position, want other things. Like acknowledgement, the opportunity to contribute to overall positive change, a public record. Again, never speaking for others, though, just providing another perspective. But some of these go a long way to quiet the adverse outcomes of abuse. That's priceless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lesher Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 As someone mentioned, the punishment is the process. CAE has been gutted of resources and the means to acquire more resources. Latest 990's have them with only a few hundred grand in liquidity (which really is nothing), and the vast majority of the post GH scenario has left them with very little in way of future revenue. *************** Honestly............ at this point, if there is a passionate group of funders about the activity in the geographic region of where CAE operates out of they may as well just try and start something from scratch. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWW11 Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 17 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said: 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. My limited experience with stuff like this is that, when you file a civil lawsuit seeking damages, the lawyers sue every single party they think may have even the slightest bit of culpability. The more parties named, the greater the potential for $$. Then it is up to those litigants to petition the court to let them out of the case, if they believe they have no culpability. The judge ultimately decides who can be let out and who stays. 3 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.