IllianaLancerContra Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 5 hours ago, cjthekid said: New Development to this trial. DCI Has filed their "Answer to Complaint", wherein they deny all claims made by the plaintiff relating to DCI. And Interestingly, and I don't know if I have read this same phrase in any of the other documents I've read, they seem to be claiming that the case itself holds no ground because retroactively extending statute of limitations is in violation to the constitution of both the USA, and New Jersey. Hopefully this image helps y'all understand more about the case a little. Thanks. This is the legalese of DCI claiming ‘this wasn’t our job back then’. We’ll see whether it works or not. The retroactive extension of the SoL was in response to Me Too & is a lot bigger than this lawsuit. If DCI prevails here, there will be a big fight in Appellate Court. It will be interesting to see if the counter claim for DCI’s legal fees succeeds. And if I read this correctly, if Cadets settle, DCI is going after part of the settlement to cover their expenses. From an optics standpoint, still not the best look as the face of the activity for DCI to claim that SA within the activity isn’t our problem. Edited March 17 by IllianaLancerContra Further pontificating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 46 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: From an optics standpoint, still not the best look as the face of the activity for DCI to claim that SA within the activity isn’t our problem. It's an appropriately aggressive response to the situation. I'd be more worried about them if they failed to appropriately defend themselves from a claim in which they played no role. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 40 minutes ago, Slingerland said: It's an appropriately aggressive response to the situation. I'd be more worried about them if they failed to appropriately defend themselves from a claim in which they played no role. I don’t disagree. Legal response & optics are often at odds with one another. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted March 17 Author Share Posted March 17 3 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: I don’t disagree. Legal response & optics are often at odds with one another. This is ugly no matter what the outcome. Luckily, hardly anyone knows or cares about the niche drum corps activity outside of a tiny segment of the population. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneWhoKnows Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Thanks. This is the legalese of DCI claiming ‘this wasn’t our job back then’. We’ll see whether it works or not. The retroactive extension of the SoL was in response to Me Too & is a lot bigger than this lawsuit. If DCI prevails here, there will be a big fight in Appellate Court. It will be interesting to see if the counter claim for DCI’s legal fees succeeds. And if I read this correctly, if Cadets settle, DCI is going after part of the settlement to cover their expenses. From an optics standpoint, still not the best look as the face of the activity for DCI to claim that SA within the activity isn’t our problem. Understanding the optics may not be great, but at the same time one cannot simply go around trying to pay off every wrongdoing of the past. People don’t like to acknowledge and admit that times were different and society was different. It doesn’t make anything right or okay. But to say we must open the wallet in an attempt correct every event of the past doesn’t create a greater common good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjohn76 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: From an optics standpoint, still not the best look as the face of the activity for DCI to claim that SA within the activity isn’t our problem. One of the things to keep in mind is that everything in this case is based on the standard of care or best practices as they were at the time of incident. While there are more protective measures in place today within DCI, the individual corps, and pretty much every other youth organization... that wasn't necessarily the case 40 years ago. That's the basis they have to argue upon, and not necessarily what's going to provide the best optics in the current "me too" era. Edited March 17 by rjohn76 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjohn76 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) . Edited March 17 by rjohn76 Duplicate post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lesher Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 On 3/3/2024 at 5:52 PM, Sh0uldN0t said: I think this is backwards. Or part of it is. What makes BD unique isn't the local connections. It's the money. The bingo money makes BDB, BDC, etc., possible, which makes the local connections work. At YEA, US Bands made possible Cadets2, a Cadets drumline, a winter guard, and a significant local dance program (in addition to Cadets and an extensive US bands program). Without the money, there's no local. It was the new regime, not the old one, that thought running the Cadets as a solo operation was a good idea. In doing so, they abandoned the network, the connections and the money they needed. One last thought about "burned bridges." I know most of this site thinks only one person is responsible. I think that's wrong. In my many decades of drum corps travels, I came to realize that only Madison alumni can rival Cadets alumni for hard-headedness. No one person burned that bridge. Vanguard's Bingo opportunity is much stronger than BD's. They are not paying occupancy rent and my time as SCV Treasurer we were NETTING nearly $1,000,000 more a year than BD was working with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 3 hours ago, Terri Schehr said: This is ugly no matter what the outcome. Luckily, hardly anyone knows or cares about the niche drum corps activity outside of a tiny segment of the population. I wish that instead of softball Dan Potter questions some real journalist could ask some real hard questions & get real answers from Nate B. I also that until all the legal process is complete (Inc SoA & anything else that might pop up between now & then) that DCI’s lawyers will strongly advise that no public comments should happen. Again- sound legal strategy & optics/doing the right thing are at odds with one another. Edited March 17 by IllianaLancerContra Added something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 2 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: Understanding the optics may not be great, but at the same time one cannot simply go around trying to pay off every wrongdoing of the past. People don’t like to acknowledge and admit that times were different and society was different. It doesn’t make anything right or okay. But to say we must open the wallet in an attempt correct every event of the past doesn’t create a greater common good. Time were different. Sure. Society was different. Sure. If by that you mean, people couldn’t imagine rampant sexual abuse by people in authority was going on, and thus stringent safeguards were not in place, yes I agree. But at the same time, the standard was exactly the same as it is today: DFTK! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.