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

[scheherazadesghost]

7 hours ago, Old Guy said:

I think their hands were full already. 
 

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

Yup,  I get the sacrifice to make non profits work all too well.

Just... seems... all the more sad that time and energy wasn't taken to prepare. It's even been said in this thread. That more lawsuits were expected after 2018...

Edit to add: I welcome correction if they were preparing that whole time and I'm just not aware.

Edited November 17, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[cixelsyd]

6 hours ago, year1buick said:

That last paragraph is nonsense. The issue is whether or not the organization was negligent, not that they intended harm.

Three things:

1.  I did not say they intended harm.

2.  I was not giving legal advice.  Only commenting on my beliefs about where the actual culpability likely resides.

3.  But since you brought it up... intent matters when determining criminal negligence, does it not?  And to extend the concept of criminal negligence to an institution, intent once again matters.

In my opinion, the nonsense was in drawing institutional equivalence between drum corps and asbestos industries.

Quote

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.

When all the most fashionable drum corps started saying they were going to operate more like a "business", I doubt this is what they meant.

[IllianaLancerContra]

3 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Three things:

….

3.  But since you brought it up... intent matters when determining criminal negligence, does it not? ….

I’m not a lawyer either but in a previous life I became very familiar with how the system works (I had 12 different high-powered USAF, DoD, & DoJ lawyers on speed-dial at one point & have traveled the world with some of them.  They are all great conversationalists & you learn a lot).  
 

Anyway, this is a civil case, not a criminal case.  The applicable statutes of limitations for criminal culpability closed long ago.  The standard of proof for criminal conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt), is different than civil standard (preponderance of the evidence).  No one is going to go to jail.  The civil system is set up to use forfeiture of money to atone for egregious behavior.   And, this forfeiture of money stands as a warning to other, similar organizations, that they better not engage in same behavior(s) or the same could happen to them.  

[IllianaLancerContra]

29 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Yup,  I get the sacrifice to make non profits work all too well.

Just... seems... all the more sad that time and energy wasn't taken to prepare. It's even been said in this thread. That more lawsuits were expected after 2018...

Edit to add: I welcome correction if they were preparing that whole time and I'm just not aware.

I think what happened in the past in Drum Corps in general & Cadets specifically is what is NASA calls ‘normalization of deviance’.   For NASA, they had gotten away with launching space shuttle with foam falling off tank for so long with no consequences that they assumed that it wasn’t a problem, so why address it?  Then they lose a crew & everyone outside NASA says ‘You knew this was happening and you didn’t do anything about it?  WTF?!?!?’   As I said in previous post - it was “George just being George”.  Which set the tone and culture for the organization.  

[cixelsyd]

47 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

The top leader of Cadets at time was later convicted of sexual abuse; some allegations predating the current lawsuit.  

Bad people.

Quote

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”.  

More bad people.

Quote

The top leader set the tone on what was tolerated in the organization.   

... by bad people.

Quote

And 40+ years later the chickens have come home to roost.   

... where now, the institution also stands accused, and must defend itself.  And mind you, this is arguably not the same institution.  There are the name changes, relocations and reorganizations.  More importantly, the new institution has member safety provisions as an improvement over the old organization.  And most importantly, the bad people were removed.

It remains to be seen how these changes will play out in the adjudication of this case.  (And as unlikely as it seems to me presently, it is also possible that new evidence could demonstrate institutional culpability that I am not aware of.)

This raises other interesting implications.  If the verdict is that the institution must pay for the sins of its fathers, how does that impact other institutions with similar history?  Will they still be as motivated to improve policies and safeguarding?  Or will the Shadow response be the only acceptable outcome?

(Background: Shadow, an open-class corps from Wisconsin, discovered they had a groomer on their staff for years.  Upon discovery, they removed him from staff, shut down the corps "for a year", and ultimately decided never to resume operations.)

[cixelsyd]

40 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Anyway, this is a civil case, not a criminal case.  The applicable statutes of limitations for criminal culpability closed long ago.  The standard of proof for criminal conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt), is different than civil standard (preponderance of the evidence).  No one is going to go to jail.  The civil system is set up to use forfeiture of money to atone for egregious behavior.   And, this forfeiture of money stands as a warning to other, similar organizations, that they better not engage in same behavior(s) or the same could happen to them.  

So this subsystem can only punish people/institutions that have money?  Those who have few assets (or can shield those assets) can carry on with impunity.

[IllianaLancerContra]

12 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Bad people.

More bad people.

... by bad people.

... where now, the institution also stands accused, and must defend itself.  And mind you, this is arguably not the same institution.  There are the name changes, relocations and reorganizations.  More importantly, the new institution has member safety provisions as an improvement over the old organization.  And most importantly, the bad people were removed.

It remains to be seen how these changes will play out in the adjudication of this case.  (And as unlikely as it seems to me presently, it is also possible that new evidence could demonstrate institutional culpability that I am not aware of.)

This raises other interesting implications.  If the verdict is that the institution must pay for the sins of its fathers, how does that impact other institutions with similar history?  Will they still be as motivated to improve policies and safeguarding?  Or will the Shadow response be the only acceptable outcome?

(Background: Shadow, an open-class corps from Wisconsin, discovered they had a groomer on their staff for years.  Upon discovery, they removed him from staff, shut down the corps "for a year", and ultimately decided never to resume operations.)

Bad people = John Does 1-10. 

[IllianaLancerContra]

3 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

So this subsystem can only punish people/institutions that have money?  Those who have few assets (or can shield those assets) can carry on with impunity.

True that you can’t get blood from a stone.   But no organization with 1/2 a synapse will hire someone with background as a serial abuser; they then take on the liability for what happens.  
 

[keystone3ply]

2 hours 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.   

Question. (raises hand from the back of the room) I was thinking statement #36 was just referring to GH as an agent or employee as a staff member.  Was GH in a leadership position in 1982? When did he become the director?

It seems like the judge overseeing the case may know the history of the Cadets since the events of 2018+ as well as the nefarious acts of the stated individual?     

Edited November 17, 2023 by keystone3ply
cx

[Jeff Ream]

5 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

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

there's alot in the laws of the land that could be better. but that's a topic best not brought up here.