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

[scheherazadesghost]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

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.

That's why a didn't come out swinging with crying victim blaming directly. There's nuance here that I'm willing to acknowledge.

That said, I still think the argument that the org doesn't have the cash flow to survive this is still on the org. Did they not foresee this potentiality after 2018 or did they simply not prepare? Or not know how?

Their lack of preparation is on them. Still not on the plaintiff as far as I can tell.

[craiga]

1 hour 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?

 

 

So Jeff,  if we follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion,  time passed is irrelevant?

So, let's suppose somebody was victimized in 1940?  How about 1934?  At one point does common sense take hold?

As I already posted,  by all means go after the offender, but not an organization which has nothing to do with that transgression other than maintaining a similar name, corps song and colors on the field all these decades later.

I should also point out that if you do  back in history 30, 40, 50 years or more, there is an increasing likelihood that the actual guilty parties are no longer alive to either face their accuser or defend themselves.   I do not know the facts of THIS case; I am just speaking in generalities.  It is for these reasons that we DO  have statute of limitations in this country for everything other than homicide.

At the end of the day, I guess I will just conclude with the thought that if this lawsuit (and the others which will undoubtedly follow) results in the permanent end to the Cadets, that will be a shame.

[ykw]

I'm watching the Ravens-Bengals game at the moment, and I'm reminded that the Baltimore Ravens were once the Cleveland Browns, before Art Modell moved the team to Baltimore from Cleveland after the 1995 season.   

The NFL later granted a new franchise to Cleveland that is known as the Cleveland Browns.   The team now playing in Cleveland wears the same uniforms and helmets as did the team that moved to Baltimore.   The NFL attributes team history of the Cleveland Browns from 1946 to 1995 to the team currently playing in Cleveland, not the franchise that Modell moved to Baltimore.

So... suppose a sexual assault lawsuit is filed based on an incident involving a Cleveland Browns staffer in 1982, would the team now known as the Cleveland Browns be liable?   Or the Baltimore Ravens?

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by ykw

[greg_orangecounty]

Not understanding why it's assumed Garfield will fold if they lose this case.  Although all the money in the world can't make up for the trauma and harm of sexual assault the reality is the average judgment settles for under a million - it's not right, or wrong, just statistical reality.  The fact it happened 40 years ago will also come into play in terms of monetary damages. 

Their insurance should be able to cover and if they end up folding it will be for other reasons, not this.  

[totaleefree]

Is it still innocent until proven guilty in the US legal system ?   These things we are discussing here are things that the plantiff will have to prove in court.    My thought is that the attorneys were hoping that to keep the case out of court the defendants would offer a settlement, but it looks like the case will go on.    My look through the court papers finds the plantiff seeking punitive damages.    I think the lawyers here were looking for a pot of money that probably doesn't exist.  

    I know bad things went on back in the day, in 85 I saw a lot of stuff go on that would not be tolerated today in any youth activity.  But in this case they will have to rely on peoples memories from 40 years ago.   Time passed does not make a wrong into a right, or undo damages.  I have no idea what actually happened 40 years ago, I think that it is going to be tough to get punitive damages from a nonprofit whose leadership  was not around when the incident or incidents occured.      Legal cost alone on this will probably be enough to damage the corps and serve the same purpose as punitive damages would. 

    I left Drum Corps somewhat bitter back in the day I was not abused but it was not the experience that I had expected and I probably wasn't ready for it.  I feel for people who had long term damage from abuse suffered on tour  more so for people who were abused by staff members who they trusted.  

    

[HockeyDad]

1 hour ago, dbc03 said:

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

Yup. The people are different. The organization still exists though. The organization under which this alleged abuse happened. 40 years ago. That’s how the judge appears to see it. (I added that sentence just for you).  Doesn’t seem at all unfair to me that the organization is a party in this suit. 

Edited November 17, 2023 by HockeyDad

[cixelsyd]

3 hours ago, DWW11 said:

Curious. I get your point, and there is a very small part of me that might even agree. But would you be put out and let a murderer walk free if their crime was solved after 40 years?  Would you want some kind of justice, even just money, if this was a member of your family who just came forward?  

Sure.  I would want justice... for the perpetrator.

Should I also sue the siblings of the perpetrator, the restaurant where it happened and all their employees personally, the manufacturer of the knife used or, if that company was subsequently merged, acquired or liquidated, all the successor businesses, and the ten John Does at neighboring tables who also had silverware handy and therefore presumably could have done something to stop it but presumably chose not to?

[year1buick]

If companies are held liable for misdeeds done decades ago (such as asbestos companies for mesothelioma cases), why would a drum corps be treated any differently? 

Edited November 17, 2023 by year1buick

[Sh0uldN0t]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

... Did they not foresee this potentiality after 2018 or did they simply not prepare? Or not know how?

Their lack of preparation is on them. Still not on the plaintiff as far as I can tell.

While I don't have any actual knowledge of the situation (nor do any of you!), I am confident saying that no one in 2018 or since anticipated this. Not even in 2008 or since. Or 1998 ... Nor should they. 

I know what the law says and what it's meant to achieve. I (as in "me") can't find any logical reason why today's corps should pay the price for the actions 40 years ago of an individual over whom it had no control and for whom it has no responsibility. If the events alleged even happened. Yes, I went there. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. 

But that's me. And I don't care who hates me for those views.  

Edited November 17, 2023 by Sh0uldN0t

[cixelsyd]

2 hours 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.

Um, no.  They also changed out the people running the whole thing.  You know, the actual perpetrator, and the entire board of directors who failed in oversight.

By the way, I notice that you did not include sexual abuse among the list of traditions that "shall always be".  I guess that is because sexual abuse is perpetrated by people, not institutions.