scheherazadesghost Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 46 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: Sure DFTK has always been a standard, but society was different in that you didn’t talk about those things and there weren’t avenues to get help. That’s the difference. Society has changed now and we can’t hold prior decades to today’s standards. There are still plenty of corps, ahem like my own, where we still don't talk about it without flack or retaliation either from leadership or from alumni. Society is moving the needle slowly but my house, and DCI in general apparently, still aren't ready to talk about it. Unacceptable. And nauseating. SMDH. And that's a problem in every possible way. Now reinforced entirely by the statements I'm reading from DCI in the case. FUBAR... both the situation metaphorically, but also the victims. Relationships within a power differential were always wrong, people knew it, and still it happened. Denying and staying silent about it is wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: What part of DFTK is so hard to understand? The "D" part. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Times were different in one very important fact as it pertains to this claim; there was no policy or mechanism between DCI and the competing corps that gave DCI the power to oversee or manage anything when it came to internal operations of the competing corps. If they had no expressed power of oversight, it will be hard to blame them for not doing it. Should there have been? With the benefit of hindsight, yes, absolutely, but WAS there? No. Think about it; the Muchachos' corps director had literally done jail time for killing a member of Garfield. If DCI had the power to exclude him from a role in one of the competing corps, don't we think they would have used it? But the founders of the organization were concerned about a strong central organization getting into their individual businesses, and intentionally designed a weak central organization when it came to anything other than media sales and promotion. DCI's position will prevail if it gets in front of a jury because it should, because it's accurate. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 It all just sounds like the argument boils down to "we didn't know any better." I give my elders more credit than that and expect greater accountability. I've seen what happens to people who speak up more times than I can count by now. Are we really saying that: 1. The DCI BOD has always been the corps running the show, including GH AND 2. They didn't know and ultimately enable countless disgusting violations to happen against young people and minors? I can't square that as easily as others. And I can only be so strongly opinionated about it because I know I'll never be employable in this field ever again... because I'm opinionated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 3 hours ago, Slingerland said: Times were different in one very important fact as it pertains to this claim; there was no policy or mechanism between DCI and the competing corps that gave DCI the power to oversee or manage anything when it came to internal operations of the competing corps. If they had no expressed power of oversight, it will be hard to blame them for not doing it. Should there have been? With the benefit of hindsight, yes, absolutely, but WAS there? No. Think about it; the Muchachos' corps director had literally done jail time for killing a member of Garfield. If DCI had the power to exclude him from a role in one of the competing corps, don't we think they would have used it? But the founders of the organization were concerned about a strong central organization getting into their individual businesses, and intentionally designed a weak central organization when it came to anything other than media sales and promotion. DCI's position will prevail if it gets in front of a jury because it should, because it's accurate. I have personal knowledge of at least one situation from back then where Corps parents were concerned about an instructor and ensured that there was at least one parent present any time he was around. And no I won’t give names as various individuals are still alive. So even if it wasn’t DCI’s job to enforce a DFTK Policy, it still could have been done at the Corps level. Because in some places it was done. But that is irrelevant w/r/t DCI as a defendant. What do you think of DCI position on idea that the Statute of Limitations cannot be suspended? I think that if this prevails it will have implications way beyond the current case, and potentially be in litigation for some time. Edited March 17 by IllianaLancerContra Missing word 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 41 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: I have personal of at least one situation from back then where Corps parents were concerned about an instructor and ensured that there was at least one parent present any time he was around. And no I won’t give names as various individuals are still alive. So even if it wasn’t DCI’s job to enforce a DFTK Policy, it still could have been done at the Corps level. Because in some places it was done. But that is irrelevant w/r/t DCI as a defendant. What do you think of DCI position on idea that the Statute of Limitations cannot be suspended? I think that if this prevails it will have implications way beyond the current case, and potentially be in litigation for some time. I agree entirely with your last paragraph. As I read the counterclaim from DCI, I thought to myself that this issue of retroactive suspensions of Statutes of Limitations might need to be ruled on by a higher court.....perhaps a MUCH higher court. Perhaps this is DCI's tactic to drag this out for years, hoping the plaintiff's lawyers decide there isn't enough cash to make this worth their while. Remember, her legal team is on record of saying they have "the Hopkins Women lined up" to represent after this case is adjudicated, even though this particular case does not involve GH directly. I do not blame the plaintiff at all; I think she has been sold a bill of goods by her lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 25 minutes ago, craiga said: I agree entirely with your last paragraph. As I read the counterclaim from DCI, I thought to myself that this issue of retroactive suspensions of Statutes of Limitations might need to be ruled on by a higher court.....perhaps a MUCH higher court. Perhaps this is DCI's tactic to drag this out for years, hoping the plaintiff's lawyers decide there isn't enough cash to make this worth their while. Remember, her legal team is on record of saying they have "the Hopkins Women lined up" to represent after this case is adjudicated, even though this particular case does not involve GH directly. I do not blame the plaintiff at all; I think she has been sold a bill of goods by her lawyers. Well, that would be one way to increase DCI’s visibility with the greater public. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 5 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Well, that would be one way to increase DCI’s visibility with the greater public. I wonder if the Catholic Church has tried this defense, and if it worked for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: So even if it wasn’t DCI’s job to enforce a DFTK Policy, it still could have been done at the Corps level. Absolutely it SHOULD have been (and was, in many cases). Two orgs I worked with in the 80s (also, no names) DID remove adults from roles in the org when it was reported they had crossed a line into inappropriate behavior. If this situation with Cadets was reported to Garfield management in 1982 and they failed to act, then that is 100% on that organization. DCI, on the other hand, had no mechanism for people to report these sorts of problems, and trusted the corps to be their own police force, believing that most corps were and would be run by adults with integrity. They are guilty of a failure of imagination when it comes to the seriousness of the situation, but the facts of the relationship between them and the performing corps is going to be demonstrated, and I'd imagine a jury would agree with that assessment. In case there's any confusion, I have zero issues with the complainant naming Garfield Cadets or their successors, which CAE essentially is. I still think the case for getting damages from a non-profit that shares one product with the old Garfield Cadets but is unconnected with the Garfield org in any other way is a bit of a stretch, but a jury will sort that out. Adding DCI, on the other hand, is an effort to create a scenario after the fact where there was culpability because of "shoulda" logic, which is more of a problem. No take on whether DCI's legal position re: the NJ Constitutionality argument goes anywhere. Edited March 18 by Slingerland 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 16 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. here's where i can see DCI's stance. this supposedly happened at a corps party right? not an official corps function? So how was DCi responsible. 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.