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

[cixelsyd]

11 minutes ago, year1buick said:

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? 

If I understand the context correctly, the asbestos makers/users were found to have continued using the substance long after discovering it was hazardous to health... all the while acting to conceal this knowledge from the people they were endangering so that they could continue asbestos use as a primary business operation.  And these were not isolated acts by individuals, but company-wide policies.  There is institutional culpability there.

Now, I suppose if sexual abuse was a primary objective of an institution, that would be comparable.  Go check the mission statements, press materials, internal correspondence, or anything else documenting drum corps throughout time, and let us know when you find one that made sexual abuse an institutional primary objective.

[Mello Dude]

I mean, the people who did this could be dead.  Ya, this is going to be quite a mountain to climb.  40 years?  I don't see this happening. 

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

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. 

i get what you're saying but it seems the judge disagreed or else this wouldn't be an issue for the current version of the organization.

and yes those that did this and enabled it and hid it should be punished. i agree 10000000%. But it seems the judge thinks the corps as it exists today should too

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours 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

ok well....my employer keeps getting hammered by the Federal Reserve for #### that happended a decade ago. None of those in charge then are still employed. Several have been fined heavily and banned from the financial world. But yet those of us still there have to suffer. And it seems the public at large seems to agree wth the Fed and our rep still suffers.

Here, the judge is taking the exact same approach. sadly the corps as it exists today is suffering as we are. They are just trying to do the best they can for their members in todays world as those of us employed in my company are just trying to do the best for our customers. The culture has changed totally, and management in place has the best intentions at both places. 

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

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.

again....myself and the poster you kept quoting are NOT blaming the victim.

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, craiga said:

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.

if the law allows an issue from 1940 or 1934 to be brought into court....so be it. 

 

Personally, i don't think the corps as it stands should pay as stiff a price as the individuals. But as i mentioned in a post above, my company and the employees suffer because of old issues, and we too have entirely new management, culture etc. and the Cadets, like my employer have tried to fight on the very fact both places are very different now, with different leadership. And it seems the law in NJ as well as the Federal Reserve seem to indicate tough #### to all parties involved. And both organizations still have the same name....we're still Wells Fargo and they're still the Cadets. We're still the stagecoach branding and they're still maroon and gold.

 

and apparently the system doesn't give #### who's in charge. the name is the same.

 

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, ykw said:

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?

 

depends on Ohio law.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, year1buick said:

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? 

my point exactly.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

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.

my company has had an entire leadership change too. we're still getting rammed up the ### despite that fact.

and sexual abuse is not a tradition. it's a crime. and the Cadets are hardly the only corps with that stain on their history. They're just the one being sued for it

[scheherazadesghost]

15 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

again....myself and the poster you kept quoting are NOT blaming the victim.

🤷🏽‍♀️

4 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

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

 

9 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I didn't say you were. I said your argument is proximal enough to it to make me unwilling to agree to your line of thinking.