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

[Jeff Ream]

6 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Nah you didn’t come off as gruff. I just worry I come across as insulting or unclear when texting.

Psychologist could have a field day with me on some of my “quirks”. 🤪😆 (Shut up Ream 😆😈)

Oh come on now. There’s work to be done before they’d get to your quirks 

[Richard Lesher]

3 hours 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?

Well......................

Something happen quietly. 

Academy dumped their new Director they hired only a few months ago. POOF, all reference to that is gone except a DCI news release that references back to the Academy announcement  which gives a link error 404. 

My point is............ if you look up that person's name in the California Teachers Registry you will see they had their teaching credential revoked for disciplinary reasons. One can speculate the scenario is correlated. 

**************

So what Academy effectively did was do the thing everyone is saying Corps should do. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Richard Lesher

[Jeff Ream]

21 hours ago, Slingerland said:

No, not really. 

An attorney did some due diligence and realized that CAE, effectively, is dead. There's nothing to get, and it's unlikely they'll be back. Sorry for that, Cadets alums.

So who can they add to the suit who's still alive, since the original suit named a bunch of dead organizations?....oh yeah! Drum Corps International, who had no real or implied role to play in vetting, hiring, or managing staff at the Garfield Cadets in the 1980s, but is still alive and unlike the Garfield/YEA/CAE Cadets, has a pulse and checking account.

At the DCI level, this is a nuisance lawsuit, and they'll likely be bumped from it soon, as well they should.

 

well we could ask for transparency, but they'd just ask where you got your info from and then refuse to speak to you if you don't tell them

[Slingerland]

13 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

well we could ask for transparency, but they'd just ask where you got your info from and then refuse to speak to you if you don't tell them

If a judge clears DCI on the lack of evidence that they had knowledge of or expressed responsibility for the situation from forty years ago, it doesn't help the original complaint from an optics standpoint.

Piercing the veil requires a high level of proof, and unless Donald Pesceone knew something forty years ago that no one else did and kept official records of it*, my guess is that it mayl be difficult to keep DCI attached to the claim as it progresses.

*I should specify that I don't know if he did or didn't: but that would be the smoking gun, in this case. If you're not aware of who Donald Pesceone is, congratulations: you're under the age of 50. 😎

Edited December 10, 2023 by Slingerland

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, Slingerland said:

If a judge clears DCI on the lack of evidence that they had knowledge of or expressed responsibility for the situation from forty years ago, it doesn't help the original complaint from an optics standpoint.

Piercing the veil requires a high level of proof, and unless Donald Pesceone knew something no one else did and kept official records of it*, my guess is that it'll be difficult to attach DCI to the original claim.

*I should specify that I don't know if he did or didn't: but that would be the smoking gun, in this case. If you're not aware of who Donald Pesceone is, congratulations: you're under the age of 50. 😎

i honestly doubt DCI knew anything about it til the suit got out past Cadets circles. as discussed elsewhere, this stuff often didn't come out into the public eye at the time this is alleged to have happened.

[cixelsyd]

On 12/9/2023 at 12:27 AM, Jurassic Lancer said:

Or do we look at it as an organization (allegedly) ruined a human being’s life 40 years ago. Is the organization accountable? 

If you ask me... no, we should not just "look at it" that way.  We should look at evidence with an open mind, and determine whether accountability extends to an organization on a case-by-case basis.  Was the organization actually functioning as a criminal enterprise?  Or were they simply a benign/benevolent youth org with hundreds/thousands of people involved, among whom a few bad individuals did very bad things individually?

20 hours ago, Slingerland said:

There's no historical evidence that DCI, even in 1982/3, had a mechanism for vetting or supervising behavior between corps members and staff. Since that appears (relevant cautionary word on my part) to be the case, and since damages are the desired outcome (why else file a suit?), when there's nothing to get from one party (CAE), the plaintiff's attorneys will keep working up the tree looking for someone they can claim should be attached, with the understanding that often, the defendant's legal advice will be to pay off the plaintiff as a cheaper alternative to paying a mounting legal defense bill. Lawyers get paid to try and win damages, so it's the legally responsible action on their part. As such, while I find it unfortunate, I don't actually see it as unethical, if that makes sense. Everyone's got a job to do.

Follow the money.  And unfortunately, when people do that, the true perpetrators of abuse escape justice by not having deep enough pockets.  Worse yet, perpetrators discover they can develop a certain degree of immunity from justice by maintaining shallow pockets, and using deeper-pocketed organizations as a diversionary target.

20 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

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.

But I'm not lost on your final sentence. I'm trying to accept this as the way, but it's really difficult... knowing that pretty much all of my abusers are not only still in the field, but are celebrated. This happens all the time according the reports that survivors disclose to me.

I have not been able to articulate my frustration with this misdirection of justice toward punishing organizations instead of perpetrators.  It feels a lot like what you say here.

[scheherazadesghost]

41 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

If you ask me... no, we should not just "look at it" that way.  We should look at evidence with an open mind, and determine whether accountability extends to an organization on a case-by-case basis.  Was the organization actually functioning as a criminal enterprise?  Or were they simply a benign/benevolent youth org with hundreds/thousands of people involved, among whom a few bad individuals did very bad things individually?

The gray area between your two scenarios is vast enough to drive the Titanic through. And alas, I'm not sure what kind of evidence we're able to rely on here. Most victim-survivors don't tend to keep (or want to keep) that kind of thing if they're able to gather it in the first place.

The bad apples argument lets enablers off the hook, so I can't really abide it. But that doesn't make these organizations criminal... unless I were to retrieve my tin foil hat, but I don't have the energy to go there given current Vanguard concerns.

41 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Follow the money.  And unfortunately, when people do that, the true perpetrators of abuse escape justice by not having deep enough pockets.  Worse yet, perpetrators discover they can develop a certain degree of immunity from justice by maintaining shallow pockets, and using deeper-pocketed organizations as a diversionary target.

I can't pretend to know the strategies of people like this. However, it's obvious that this type of person seeks activities and institutions that permit them to continue to abuse power (either by neglect, ignorance, or actual enabling.) And there are individual John Does named in this case, unlike SoA, so technically, there are alleged enablers who are being addressed at the same time as the org. From what this thread has indicated, it's up to the judge to determine if the orgs should be included in the case. I will be curious to know what they decide.

It would seem that both cases are including the orgs for the time being. That should be, if nothing else, indicating what the survivors and their legal teams think about culpability.

41 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

I have not been able to articulate my frustration with this misdirection of justice toward punishing organizations instead of perpetrators.  It feels a lot like what you say here.

This is tougher to respond to because, despite our pulling from the same frustration, we've arrived at different conclusions. I see and understand yours, but I can't agree at this time. If the perps can continue to wiggle out of justice, then I'm sorry, I still believe that the bucks stopped with the orgs and DCI. They claim to be youth education focused for heaven's sake. Do no harm is pretty much the biggest rule and these orgs failed on that front. Complete mission failure for these survivors.

If nothing else, holding the orgs accountable may mean that they begin to actually pour significant resources into a concerted effort to improve safeguarding. As it stands right now, only SoA has dramatically improved their policies to protect young people even remotely adequately. Everyone else is behind them. (Now, we still don't know how policies played in real time, but the policies are still robust compared to the rest of the activity.)

So, yes, even if the perp isn't with the org anymore, the orgs are still relying on their legacies to do business. Those legacies include heinous violations of young people. If they want to continue to leverage their legacies ethically, they need to come clean about the full 100% of those legacies. But that's already been said here, I'm just rephrasing.

[craiga]

44 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

The gray area between your two scenarios is vast enough to drive the Titanic through. And alas, I'm not sure what kind of evidence we're able to rely on here. Most victim-survivors don't tend to keep (or want to keep) that kind of thing if they're able to gather it in the first place.

The bad apples argument lets enablers off the hook, so I can't really abide it. But that doesn't make these organizations criminal... unless I were to retrieve my tin foil hat, but I don't have the energy to go there given current Vanguard concerns.

I can't pretend to know the strategies of people like this. However, it's obvious that this type of person seeks activities and institutions that permit them to continue to abuse power (either by neglect, ignorance, or actual enabling.) And there are individual John Does named in this case, unlike SoA, so technically, there are alleged enablers who are being addressed at the same time as the org. From what this thread has indicated, it's up to the judge to determine if the orgs should be included in the case. I will be curious to know what they decide.

It would seem that both cases are including the orgs for the time being. That should be, if nothing else, indicating what the survivors and their legal teams think about culpability.

This is tougher to respond to because, despite our pulling from the same frustration, we've arrived at different conclusions. I see and understand yours, but I can't agree at this time. If the perps can continue to wiggle out of justice, then I'm sorry, I still believe that the bucks stopped with the orgs and DCI. They claim to be youth education focused for heaven's sake. Do no harm is pretty much the biggest rule and these orgs failed on that front. Complete mission failure for these survivors.

If nothing else, holding the orgs accountable may mean that they begin to actually pour significant resources into a concerted effort to improve safeguarding. As it stands right now, only SoA has dramatically improved their policies to protect young people even remotely adequately. Everyone else is behind them. (Now, we still don't know how policies played in real time, but the policies are still robust compared to the rest of the activity.)

So, yes, even if the perp isn't with the org anymore, the orgs are still relying on their legacies to do business. Those legacies include heinous violations of young people. If they want to continue to leverage their legacies ethically, they need to come clean about the full 100% of those legacies. But that's already been said here, I'm just rephrasing.

A well written post...as usual. However, I do take issue with your comment that only SOA has safeguards to adequately protect its members.   Due to their misdeeds and subsequent scrutiny,  they may be the highest profile organization  at present, but I would argue there are other organizations that have been employing best practices for years.

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, craiga said:

A well written post...as usual. However, I do take issue with your comment that only SOA has safeguards to adequately protect its members.   Due to their misdeeds and subsequent scrutiny,  they may be the highest profile organization  at present, but I would argue there are other organizations that have been employing best practices for years.

agreed. though 2 of those i thought were the best had a little issue this year that led to someone being removed from tour in July

[JimF-LowBari]

3 hours ago, craiga said:

A well written post...as usual. However, I do take issue with your comment that only SOA has safeguards to adequately protect its members.   Due to their misdeeds and subsequent scrutiny,  they may be the highest profile organization  at present, but I would argue there are other organizations that have been employing best practices for years.

SoA appears to have busted their tail by taking a year off and evaluate how to handle their problems. Hope they get it right but will wait and see how future problems are resolved