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

[Old Guy]

5 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.

I think their hands were full already. 
 

The degree of sacrifice you have to do to make things work is unbelievable. 

[year1buick]

3 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

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.

That last paragraph is nonsense. The issue is whether or not the organization was negligent, not that they intended harm. Even with those companies, their goal wasn’t to cause harm, it was greed- to keep making money, consequences be ######. (Win at all costs?) 

My point was just that organizations in the business world still have to pay for their mistakes, even years down the road and I doubt drum corps will be held to a different standard.

Edited November 17, 2023 by year1buick

[TheOneWhoKnows]

5 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

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

I understand that. What I’m saying is we as a society should do better to recognize actual culpability. 

[cixelsyd]

7 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

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 question of whether the corps as it exists today should too should be examined in court.

Fixed that for you.

[cixelsyd]

7 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

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.

Yes, but this sounds like another case of legitimate institutional culpability.  A company whose primary objective is to make money in the business of manipulating money had half a billion dollars in sanctions violations occur on their platform over a period of six years.

[DWW11]

9 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

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?

Whether i believe you should sue all of those peripheral people doesn’t matter.  It is how it is done.  Judges and mediators are very skilled at figuring out who really holds liability and who doesn’t.  They will, often times, hold someone accountable but require them to pay a pittance.
 

i think the judge is working hard to get this person her day in court, so she can tell her truth and put it behind her.  Solid proof will be hard to come by on all sides.  In the end, there will be a judgment or settlement in her favor, but I don’t see it being large.  Maybe large enough to shutter Cadets forever.  But also maybe not.  I think, as was mentioned earlier, her attorneys really wanted a settlement offer they could live with.  No one wins going to trial against defendants who have little to no money or assets.  

[IllianaLancerContra]

8 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

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

And the judge is there to interpret the law of the relevant jurisdiction (in this case   NJ).  I think he has a pretty good idea what he is doing.  If not, it can be appealed & more judges will look at it.  

[IllianaLancerContra]

9 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

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.

The top leader of Cadets at time was later convicted of sexual abuse; some allegations predating the current lawsuit.   He used his position in the organization to obtain victims.  When victims complained to others in the organizational leadership, they were told it was “George being George”.  The top leader set the tone on what was tolerated in the organization.   And 40+ years later the chickens have come home to roost.   

[cixelsyd]

8 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

Personally, i don't think the corps as it stands should pay as stiff a price as the individuals.

So we have some common ground.

[Terri Schehr]

18 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

The top leader of Cadets at time was later convicted of sexual abuse; some allegations predating the current lawsuit.   He used his position in the organization to obtain victims.  When victims complained to others in the organizational leadership, they were told it was “George being George”.  The top leader set the tone on what was tolerated in the organization.   And 40+ years later the chickens have come home to roost.   

Nothing galls me more about this whole thing than the old “It’s just George being George” trope they hauled out as a defense for their lack of reporting.