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

[JimF-LowBari]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Thank you. And ah yes, we're getting into legal maneuvering that is way above my pay grade.

I think it comes down to the concern I've always had. If there is no mechanism by which anyone can be held accountable for the past, then no one will be held accountable. There is no justice or relief for the survivors in most cases. AND we are still seeing instances of violations crop up, even with the attention and best intentions of those involved.

 

And to add to the mix: when did “mandatory reporter” start in these jurisdictions? Think that was part of the problem with the Penn State/Sandusky cases. There wasn’t mandatory reporting so certain people were off the hook legally.

[scheherazadesghost]

5 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

And to add to the mix: when did “mandatory reporter” start in these jurisdictions? Think that was part of the problem with the Penn State/Sandusky cases. There wasn’t mandatory reporting so certain people were off the hook legally.

Well that's certainly a gut-check of a question. Wow. Nothing to add here. Just yuck.

And perhaps that this why I'm so keen on leveraging mechanisms outside of the legal structure (that are also ethical of course) that could bring about reconciliation. They exist.

[IllianaLancerContra]

1 hour ago, Slingerland said:

In an ideal world, there would be a formal database of those working in the drum corps, WGI, and marching bands worlds that can serve as a clearinghouse for information regarding their past working experiences.

That said, the legal and practical challenges involved would be huge, not the least of which would be setting a standard of what counts as genuinely reportable. There have been multiple cases I can think of where an eventual offender turned out to have been under investigation someplace else, but resigned prior to completion of the investigation, rendering it dead and their record unsullied.

Lots of challenges, but a concept worth looking into.

The problem as I see it with a database is how is it decided who gets put in it?  There are all sorts of due process concerns;  if someone is put in who disagrees & lawyers-up, taking DCI/Corps to court,  they are from a potential financial standpoint right back where they are now - needing to pay for legal representation as the case moves through the courts. 
 

Thinking about it - the whole idea of a ‘Registry of Creepy Adults Involved in Youth Activities’ (for lack of a better term) is something that the State or Federal Legislatures could adopt for ALL youth activities (arts, sports, science, church, scouting, etc)  and to pass legal muster it would probably need to be set up that way.  

[Slingerland]

50 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

The problem as I see it with a database is how is it decided who gets put in it?  There are all sorts of due process concerns;  if someone is put in who disagrees & lawyers-up, taking DCI/Corps to court,  they are from a potential financial standpoint right back where they are now - needing to pay for legal representation as the case moves through the courts. 
 

Exactly correct. In theory, it's a good idea: practically it could be an absolute nightmare and have an opposite effect to the intent. 

[JimF-LowBari]

2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

The problem as I see it with a database is how is it decided who gets put in it?  There are all sorts of due process concerns;  if someone is put in who disagrees & lawyers-up, taking DCI/Corps to court,  they are from a potential financial standpoint right back where they are now - needing to pay for legal representation as the case moves through the courts. 
 

Thinking about it - the whole idea of a ‘Registry of Creepy Adults Involved in Youth Activities’ (for lack of a better term) is something that the State or Federal Legislatures could adopt for ALL youth activities (arts, sports, science, church, scouting, etc)  and to pass legal muster it would probably need to be set up that way.  

How is someone put on the “Megan’s List”? From the people I know on the list (2 from workplace, 2 distant relatives) believe they had to be found guilty. Of course for this to work on the corps (or any other youth activity) the groups have to do their #### job and report to the authorities for this to work.

And other problem is at what point does creepy as bleep become criminal?

Edited December 9, 2023 by JimF-LowBari

[MikeD]

11 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

How is someone put on the “Megan’s List”? From the people I know on the list (2 from workplace, 2 distant relatives) believe they had to be found guilty. Of course for this to work on the corps (or any other youth activity) the groups have to do their #### job and report to the authorities for this to work.

And other problem is at what point does creepy as bleep become criminal?

I think the person must be convicted of a relevant crime to be placed on the list. 
 

 

[ykw]

8 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

The SOL in New Jersey was waived for a period due to MeToo events.  I recall this being discussed during the Hopacalypse.  The current lawsuit was filed before the window of the modified SOL closed. 

Yep.  So all the molested New Jersey altar boys of the 20th Century could put in their civil claims against the deep-pocketed Roman Catholic Church.

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by ykw

[Jeff Ream]

8 hours ago, Slingerland said:

 

Not an attorney - just attorney(s) adjacent 😂.

But based on business law, yes, it would be a large factor.  Structurally, DCI resembles a co-op now, but in reality, it was an independent non-profit whose primary job was to generate and devolve revenues to  individual drum corps, with the corps who benefitted from those funds changing from year to year based on the individual corps' competitive success. To that point:

- being a "member" of DCI in the early 80s simply meant that you had made Finals the previous August. The current concept where everyone who competes is "a member" didn't exist,  and membership could be lost by failing to make Finals two years in a row, if I remember correctly. That doesn't speak to an organization where the "members" have much power.

- Flipping it around, the founders very specifically did not want an organization that could get up in anyone's business on a corps by corps basis, so DCI was not given tools to drive or enforce standards outside of anything on the competition field (age limits, instrumentation, etc) and a requirement to appear at enough shows to protect the value of the brand.

Thinking of the personalities involved in creating DCI (Warren, Jones, Bonfiglio, et al), they were, to a person, protective of their organizations to a degree that makes it unlikely they would have wanted a powerful central organization when it came to enforcing standards at their individual corps. The change in DCI to having a say in how corps operate and the ability to enforce standards is a relatively recent development, and the change was driven by the voting members (in the current sense) starting 9 or 10 years ago.

I see no issue with the plaintiff's decision to sue the Cadets organization, for the record. The laws are clear in support there, but trying to add another organization that literally had no power to control or manage the instigating incident seems driven by a desire to force DCI to pony up some money to make things go away for them, not because there was a genuine ability or "should have known" basis for adding them in the first place. But hey, just my take based on what's out there. 

As dci was never notified at the time, could they even be liable?

[JimF-LowBari]

2 hours ago, MikeD said:

I think the person must be convicted of a relevant crime to be placed on the list. 
 

 

My thinking also. Know of one where being put on the list was part of a plea bargain. Person needed heavy medication to function and either missed doses or needed levels changed. He supposed said something to a youngster and doesn’t remember it. Instead of trial and possible penalty he was put on the list to keep him from kids. (Guy is scary looking and acting anyway so who knows what happened)

[Jeff Ream]

6 hours ago, OldSnareDrummer said:

A question from the uneducated. Will the decision on the SOA case have bearing on the Cadets case when it comes to DCI's culpability? A precedent of sorts. 

I don’t think so because dci did have the reporting mechanisms in place for Spirit.