Terri Schehr Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) On 4/3/2024 at 9:10 AM, JimF-LowBari said: Edited April 6 by Terri Schehr 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 21 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Wish I could remember who on either RAMD or DCP chewed me out for saying corps are one big “oh crap” away from going away. Just surprised SCV is this far along in trying to get back. You see what happens when concerned parties try to say something out loud, though. Not surprising. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galen Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 5 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: If what you are saying is true, it didn’t come from nowhere. The wounds were self-inflicted. In other words, and to be specific, if people are glad this happened because they had enough of George Hopkins, then that’s on GH. It’s not on those who are glad (using your word). I'm not saying it is on those who are glad, and I agree that at the end of the day, the corps (no matter what legal entity is running them) ultimately has itself to blame for the toxic environment and atmosphere that it perpetuated for decades. The wording of their press release is one last spiteful, petty attempt at deflection and is reflective of that atmosphere, and if that's the way they want to go out, then I say good riddance. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galen Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 24 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Wish I could remember who on either RAMD or DCP chewed me out for saying corps are one big “oh crap” away from going away. Just surprised SCV is this far along in trying to get back. At this point I think it's fair to assume that any corps that's been around for more than 20 years or so has some skeletons in their closet (and no doubt some that are younger than that). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FormerXyloWhiz Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 8 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: The lawsuit mentions John Does 1-10; assuming that these refer to specific individuals, could they have some liability? In a previous life I was involved with many legal actions where I was the guy that understood various technical issues & had to explain them to the lawyers (& vice versa- had to explain to my leadership what the lawyers were saying). So I have a bit of experience in civil torts, but don’t ever recall seeing John Does. Any legal types want to educate us? A Plaintiff's attorney would cast the widest net possible to find coverage for their client in a Plaintiff tort. I would wager that the hope would be that through the discovery process information would show that one of these potential John Does may have assets or coverage they could pursue. It's fishing - you throw out the bait. Sometimes you get a Marlin. Sometimes you get a boot. As for the John Does themselves, I haven't read the suit but there would really be only two options. Option 1 - Plaintiff knows person "X" did "Y" but it was 40+ years ago and they don't know that person's name. Option 2 - they know the names and withheld in filing the Complaint, but identified names in discovery (which we don't get to see on the portal). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) On 4/3/2024 at 9:31 AM, scheherazadesghost said: Edited April 6 by Terri Schehr 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geneva Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 I cannot believe how incredibly unfair this result of the action by one individual over 40 years ago is to this organization. To think that the Cadets and the entire drum corps world should sustain such a loss is hard to understand. Is this really the desired remedy sought after by the plaintiff?! The memories and sense of accomplishment that future members are now denied as had past members and the drum corps community received. This is in no way justice. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwillis35 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 10 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: i think they wanted money, thats why they kept adding people and organizations. but let's be honest....as we continue to learn, it was a toxic place. eventually it had to catch up with them. everyone thought 2018 would be what killed the corps, but amazingly it lasted 5 more years. This is very true. In some ways you might say the Garfield Cadets were lucky to not have folded in the late 70s or early 80s. Being one of the older corps they were never setup for modern drum corps travel, education, and funding like many non-profits were that began in the 70s, 80s, or 90s (and this is not to say those groups were all setup perfectly either). The Cadets were essentially a church corps established for parades. Like many neighborhood corps of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s most of those groups do not exist today. I'm not sure if Madison and Cavaliers are the only two left. I don't think Racine Scouts are around anymore...or are they? But there is a reason most corps that were founded in the early 20th Century are no longer around. What kept them afloat (Garfield)? It was not GH as some might say (despite all his criminal behavior off the field). I think they got lucky that Zingali, Sylvester, Hannum, and Jim Prime Jr came in and designed some shows (with the creative help from Cesario) that pushed the activity forward. This brought them popularity and brand name and many of the older alumni started giving again. This is what really saved them temporarily...the alumni/fans/donors and the instructional team. And even with GH robbing Peter to pay Paul (cooking the books) they managed to thrive in donor contributions and also changes in instrument deals and other spnsorships. YEA never really panned out to be the "educational" org they said it would be. To me it was more a front for money collection. But by 2017 and 2018 -- when everything comes to light with GH and others -- we all knew that should have been the knockout punch. As much as my heart is bleeding due to the loss of an iconic and historic drum corps my head says this is the way it has to be. They had chance after chance after chance to make changes. They lacked the whistle blowers who may have known what was going on and who should have stepped up back in the 80s, maybe even the late 70s, and put a stop to the methods of operation and people within (no matter how high their rank) who were commiting crimes and/or who were engaged in behaviors not conducive to safety, education, and a positive learning environment. The Garfield Cades were one of the few corps that somehow crossed the divide between the early days of drum corps in America (the neighborhood corps, Scouts groups, CYO, AL, and VFW days) to modern DCI days; BUT...that transition was frought with error that would make it difficult for them to last unless someone with real forsight and a progressive look at education, funding, safe travel, community involvement and real purpose were to redefine the corps mission statement and not just the design of a show. So even without the criminial ongoings of the corps' leader it was always going to be difficult for a corps from 1934 to navigate the modern DCI environment. Edited April 3 by jwillis35 7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonesjones89 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 38 minutes ago, FormerXyloWhiz said: A Plaintiff's attorney would cast the widest net possible to find coverage for their client in a Plaintiff tort. I would wager that the hope would be that through the discovery process information would show that one of these potential John Does may have assets or coverage they could pursue. It's fishing - you throw out the bait. Sometimes you get a Marlin. Sometimes you get a boot. As for the John Does themselves, I haven't read the suit but there would really be only two options. Option 1 - Plaintiff knows person "X" did "Y" but it was 40+ years ago and they don't know that person's name. Option 2 - they know the names and withheld in filing the Complaint, but identified names in discovery (which we don't get to see on the portal). I handle a few John Doe/Jane Doe suits myself for work. Most times I've seen, it's used as a place holder on the unknown "who," to be discovered later. Almost like keeping a foot in the door to the possibilities. Pltf may later amend in other CAE subsidiaries, successors, etc. or just other defendants in general. To your point, a good Pltf attorney would leave no stone or option, unturned. Edited April 3 by bonesjones89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 12 hours ago, Galen said: Agreed- even the press release is riddled with gaslighting and victim-blaming. Yes, the pointed language in it is very surprising to see, but they've been consistent about that all along the process. 😞 Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts