A Great Article on The Cadets

[FormerXyloWhiz]

8 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

So if I am reading these two points correctly, what this means is that if an organization with skeletons in their closet retains their besmirched name, reputation and insurance coverage, and does not rebrand/reorganize as CAE did, they actually stand a better chance of both:

• organizational survival
• providing some compensation for victims

I wouldn't necessarily put either point in that particular way nor do I agree that it is necessarily true.  Torts are all snowflakes.  The process is the same, but no two are alike and grand comparisons can fall short.  Different people, different damages, different rules, different insurance companies, different attorneys, etc.  There are so many potential variables you can't play the comparison game.  I often get the "well my friend's case settled for X money within 3 months, why isn't mine?"  This is the reason why - no two are the same. 

But I would concede that the scenario you describe under the right circumstances would be much better for the victim.  I would say generally that when it comes to actions of a "compensatory" nature, having insurance > not having insurance.  Without fail.  It's why the industry exists.  Having insurance is better for both the accuser and the accused in a civil case.  It can provide compensation for the accuser, and it can keep the accused from losing everything. 

Also keep in mind that this particular Tort we're talking about is anomalous.  New Jersey briefly waiving the statute in entirely for filing this sort of action is something unforeseen and highly irregular.  And now that the window is closed - it couldn't happen today.  A very specific set of events had to transpire to get us here.  The idea of my home state deciding "let's waive this tort statute entirely for this calendar year and then reinstate it" sounds like absolute chaos to me.

[keystone3ply]

3 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

I would think so.  And he who I will not speak name of is likely to be named as a defendant.  I wonder if he is one of the John Does in the current case?

 

2 hours ago, Terri Schehr said:

I couldn’t say but as we all know, their stories have been published in the Philadelphia inquirer.  Seems like pretty strong footing but I don’t even play a lawyer on tv. 

I'm sure he is one of the "John Does" named in the lawsuit.  In the compliant statement #36, G Hopkins is named as an agent or employee who knew the abuse was about to take place & didn’t do anything to prevent. Not sure what his role was during that time, but I think he was an instructor or maybe assistant director?

[Terri Schehr]

Just now, keystone3ply said:

 

I'm sure he is one of the "John Does" named in the lawsuit.  In the compliant statement #36, G Hopkins is named as an agent or employee who knew the abuse was about to take place & didn’t do anything to prevent. Not sure what his role was during that time, but I think he was an instructor or maybe assistant director?

I think he was director by 82. 

[TheOneWhoKnows]

3 hours ago, FormerXyloWhiz said:

I wouldn't necessarily put either point in that particular way nor do I agree that it is necessarily true.  Torts are all snowflakes.  The process is the same, but no two are alike and grand comparisons can fall short.  Different people, different damages, different rules, different insurance companies, different attorneys, etc.  There are so many potential variables you can't play the comparison game.  I often get the "well my friend's case settled for X money within 3 months, why isn't mine?"  This is the reason why - no two are the same. 

But I would concede that the scenario you describe under the right circumstances would be much better for the victim.  I would say generally that when it comes to actions of a "compensatory" nature, having insurance > not having insurance.  Without fail.  It's why the industry exists.  Having insurance is better for both the accuser and the accused in a civil case.  It can provide compensation for the accuser, and it can keep the accused from losing everything. 

Also keep in mind that this particular Tort we're talking about is anomalous.  New Jersey briefly waiving the statute in entirely for filing this sort of action is something unforeseen and highly irregular.  And now that the window is closed - it couldn't happen today.  A very specific set of events had to transpire to get us here.  The idea of my home state deciding "let's waive this tort statute entirely for this calendar year and then reinstate it" sounds like absolute chaos to me.

That being said, do you think DCI’s claim that this “retroactively waiving of statutes” goes against the constitution of the state holds merit and could well be challenged? 

[FormerXyloWhiz]

14 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

That being said, do you think DCI’s claim that this “retroactively waiving of statutes” goes against the constitution of the state holds merit and could well be challenged? 

That would be more of a lawyerly question as opposed to a paralegally (a word I just made up) question.  I know precisely squat about the New Jersey state constitution, so I couldn't possibly begin to opine right now.  This is the sort of question that may ultimately be directly ruled upon by a judge in the case before it ever gets to trial.  DCI could file the equivalent of what we call a "motion for summary judgment," basically arguing that the case should end now and be dismissed and then lay out their reasons why.  When they file that, the Plaintiff side gets to file their opposition to it, and eventually a judge makes a decision.  If they are successful in that argument that could be the end of the whole thing barring appeals.

[Slingerland]

Interesting to consider that if and when DCI gets severed from the case whether that ends the whole thing, since CAE has nothing for the plaintiff to get, and I'm not sure who else they could go after (we're presuming that the individual alleged to have assaulted or statutoriy raped the plaintiff is no longer among the living, or has made themselves unfindable, so there'd be nothing to get there either).

Edited March 19 by Slingerland

[Richard Lesher]

36 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

Interesting to consider that if and when DCI gets severed from the case whether that ends the whole thing, since CAE has nothing for the plaintiff to get, and I'm not sure who else they could go after (we're presuming that the individual alleged to have assaulted or statutoriy raped the plaintiff is no longer among the living, or has made themselves unfindable, so there'd be nothing to get there either).

There is another Corps' illegal operating practices DCI is undeniably tied to that someone has saved every recent communication to DCI giving them a heads up via their ethics channel, and who saved communications to include direct communications from CEO of DCI denying the problem exists despite evidence directly from state regulators recording the opposite.

So if someone goes after that Corps and includes DCI then they are toast. 

[HockeyDad]

Interesting reading. At this point, however, does the outcome have any effect on the future of the Cadets?  They seem to be in a place right now whereby a comeback seems highly unlikely, no matter what happens with the lawsuit. Unfortunately. 

[HockeyDad]

4 minutes ago, Richard Lesher said:

There is another Corps' illegal operating practices DCI is undeniably tied to that someone has saved every recent communication to DCI giving them a heads up via their ethics channel, and who saved communications to include direct communications from CEO of DCI denying the problem exists despite evidence directly from state regulators recording the opposite.

So if someone goes after that Corps and includes DCI then they are toast. 

Funny (to me) but snotty retort removed. I’m trying to be better. 

Edited March 19 by HockeyDad

[Richard Lesher]

1 minute ago, HockeyDad said:

Interesting reading. At this point, however, does the outcome have any effect on the future of the Cadets?  They seem to be in a place right now whereby a comeback seems highly unlikely, no matter what happens with the lawsuit. Unfortunately. 

Agreed, it's not a "Brand" anyone should logically be wanting to revive either by reputation or legal risks.