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

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

The organization, and others like it, avoided numerous opportunities to seek out more financially stable routes that would've made them more resilient to the necessary accountability headed their ways. That's not on the plaintiff.

The organization, and others like it, missed or avoided opportunities to mediate and resolve heinous issues like this... for decades. That's also not on the plaintiff.

Again, I literally never said you are victim blaming. I said your arguments are proximal to it, in the sense that ultimately by bringing forth such a necessary call for accountability, they are catching blame for the downfall of a whole activity. I'm trying to point out ways in which defendants and their cohort/contemporaries should be catching some of the blame too.

Cause your argument still has a likelihood of deterring victims from stepping forward, and I want to differentiate myself and my arguments from that.

it's not the plaintiffs fault if the corps goes belly up, and thats not what they are saying. it's simple fact. i hope the victim gets every penny and then some, as well as the peace they need. But the bottom line is the corps is toast financially if the victim gets what they seek. that the corps goes under isn't their fault. Unless the victim makes some type of statement saying their goal is to kill the corps, any rational person doesn't blame them or lay the corps demise at their feet.

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, craiga said:

Yes, considering that NONE of the current Cadets members and most likely most of the instructional staff wasn't even born when this all took place.

The plaintiff should sue the actual offender, not an entirely different organization 40 years removed.

There absolutely IS money driving this, and the word on the street is that this same attorney is lining up additional defendants to belly up to the bar and get a windfall after this first case is settled and the precedent is set.

I have no contacts at Cadets; I just think they are about to be sued into oblivion.

is it different though? Let's think about this, and i believe it was stated before:

everything in this version of the Cadets is all about maroon and gold right?

For Holy Name Shall Always Be?

1934?

all the titles, DCI, VFW, AL and More?

The Prayer Block?

the traditions?

history night?

 

from a corporate filing standpoint, yeah it's a different corps. But in EVERYTHING this version of the corps does, it's still all about everything Cadets it has been since 1934. The only thing different is the legal name created when it split off from YEA, the previous caretaker of all of the above, which was going bankrupt after everything that came to light in 2018.

 

After all...take Boston. How long has it been since Inspire Arts became the legal name DBA Boston Crusaders? Yet everything Boston history...Waldo, Conquest, Giant...all goes back to 1940 right? In fact after the issues that led to Boston Corps in the 80's, what was the number one goal? to get the name Boston Crusaders back. So is Boston today really a different corps than the one that played California Dreaming or had Jerry's awesome ground breaking drum solos?

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Jeff Ream

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, MikeN said:

There's a bit of a legal argument going on about that, based on the records available.

Mike

and one the corps was losing

[ykw]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

and the shocking thing is this is the case everyone expected when the first Cadets issue came to light in April of 2018.

so are you saying this alleged incident had been an "open secret" since 1982?

[Jeff Ream]

29 minutes ago, corps8294 said:

I can't help but think there was more going on with the Cadets financial situation than just a lawsuit against them. It seems like as soon as the corps was facing legal action from somebody; that was the final nail in the coffin and everything had to go. 

i agree. but they claim transparency even if they don't practice it.

[Jeff Ream]

3 minutes ago, ykw said:

so are you saying this alleged incident had been an "open secret" since 1982?

no. i'm saying everyone expected a lawsuit like this about the issues that came to light in 2018 with the former director.

[TheOneWhoKnows]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

is it different though? Let's think about this, and i believe it was stated before:

everything in this version of the Cadets is all about maroon and gold right?

For Holy Name Shall Always Be?

1934?

all the titles, DCI, VFW, AL and More?

The Prayer Block?

the traditions?

history night?

 

from a corporate filing standpoint, yeah it's a different corps. But in EVERYTHING this version of the corps does, it's still all about everything Cadets it has been since 1934. The only thing different is the legal name created when it split off from YEA, the previous caretaker of all of the above, which was going bankrupt after everything that came to light in 2018.

 

After all...take Boston. How long has it been since Inspire Arts became the legal name DBA Boston Crusaders? Yet everything Boston history...Waldo, Conquest, Giant...all goes back to 1940 right? In fact after the issues that led to Boston Corps in the 80's, what was the number one goal? to get the name Boston Crusaders back. So is Boston today really a different corps than the one that played California Dreaming or had Jerry's awesome ground breaking drum solos?

 

 

I get what you’re saying, but again it was the individuals that were at the helm at the time that are responsible. The perpetrator and the those that harbored him as staff at the time. 
 

Can the organization not make progress towards ensuring that things like this don’t happen again? As far as the organization is concerned, they should be required to prove implementation of policies and procedures to prevent this from happening. 
 

Outside of that, those actually responsible should be held accountable. 

[DWW11]

51 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

If Person #1 kill somebody 40 years ago (or last week), I wouldn’t want the son of that person to spend time in jail because they are related by blood. 
 

But I’d send that person #1 to the death row. 

Fair enough!

[HockeyDad]

47 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

From 40 years ago. I’m sorry, but the organization that exists today, meaning board, directors, etc, are not the organization that existed then. 

The individuals responsible should be held accountable. Not an organization that has leadership no longer applicable to the situation. 

Well apparently the judge disagrees with you. 

[dbc03]

13 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Well apparently the judge disagrees with you. 

You don't have to keep saying this every time someone posts about how the org has completely changed. Yes, we know what the judge has said regarding the corps being the legal successor to the Garfield Cadets. It's still true that nobody involved with The Cadets today had any control over this situation 40 years ago despite whatever legal liability they are deemed to have. Things can be true and not legally relevant