fred8033

That is my perception too. Co-ed reduces boorish, uncouth behavior.

Where did BSA say BSA only bankruptcy is not viable? ... actually interested ... I'd like to read BSA's position. ... yeah, I'm not a lawyer. I just enjoy reading this stuff.

I agree it flies in the face of the program; the brotherhood of scouting; the fellowship of scouting. It's against the vision. My challenge is G2SS is not a cafeteria plan anymore than YP is a cafeteria plan. You can't pick what you like and don't like. If you ignore the no camping with units from other COs, what else do you ignore? What liabilities do you open? Do you ignore two deep because you don't have abusers in your troop? ... Work to find a solution or a currently used method. I would hesitate to escalate too far or too loud, but I would pursue to the level of an honest answer. A scout is trustworthy. With that said, an all Lutheran scouting event does smell / sound like a council / district event. You need to work with council leadership to get it cleared. I can't believe the council would say no unless there are other issues going on (people, conflict, turf, etc)

One troop runs a campout and invites scouts. Other troop attends but as individual scouts under the other troop. No different than what is often done now. Just instead of one, two or three scouts. It's 8, 12, 15.

IMHO, it's a lawyer / legal liability issue. It came out of the same generation as other G2SS changes and YP improvements and insurance changes, etc. If you have multiple units from different COs camping together, there is no clear single answerable CO being responsible / owning the event. So then, it's automatically a council event. Seriously, if three groups camp together, how does CO #1 know that CO #2 has vetted their leaders and being responsible. It creates a legal mess. Who is making sure each piece-part fulfills G2SS ?

What you wrote is what to tell your DE. Your unit is too small and "event"ing together will help build the troop. With COVID becoming the norm, I can't see them saying no. If anything, I can see them saying ... you have standing permission to work together unless you hear different.

Guide to Safe Scouting, page 21. ... III Camping ... 2nd major bullet https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss03/ With that said, there are "grey areas" and a "continuum of progressively" camping together. Send the district DE an email saying: Our troop #1 and troop #2 will be camping at ****** and may plan to interact / work together during the camp out. Let us know if this is an issue. I'll assume all is okay unless I hear back. If you use a council property, I'm not sure I'd even ask as camping at a council camp is inherently camping with other troops. The council camps expect your scouts to interact with the scouts of other troops. High adventures ... troops often partner with other troops to fill slots ... I've never seen permission asked if that was okay. Grey areas Shared camp site or each troop reserves it's own? Shared food and resources or each troop on it's own? ... Middle ... troop #1 cooks breakfast and troop #2 cooks dinner Shared schedule / activity plan or each troop has it's own with overlap? ... Middle ... a one or two scheduled / coordinated activities ... a hike ... a game Offered to individual scouts instead of the whole troop ... Troops often bring scouts from other troops and/or potential scouts with on adventure trips / campouts. I've never seen permission requested from the local council. I've never seen the council broadcast that units are failing to do this and it's expected. Continuum of progression One end ... same place same date, but independently setup/scheduled... each troop reserves it's own site ... prepares / plans on it's own ... arrives and leaves on it's own ... pays it's own bills Other end ... looks and smells like a district event ... advertising ... Single plan/schedule/reservation ... One troop pays another troop

A good example ... sleeping bags. If this was 1920s scouting, few would have sleeping bags. You'd use a wool blanket ... or what you had around the house. A sleeping bag is really a zipped bed comforter. ... And lately when camping, I do sort of use my excess equipment to make a real bed with a fitted sheet around my air mattress. Sometimes I use my sleeping bag more as a comforter. ... but then again I'm getting older and like extra ground padding.

Ahhh ... I think I get it now. This is about moving rights to sue from the victim to the trust. If the case is well proven in an open state, the victim can give their legal rights to sue to the trust and the trust then pays the victim. The trust then goes after the non-settled insurers.

Look at page ii. First three bills had zero withheld. Forth bill was a transition and had 20% withheld. All subsequent bills averaged twice the original average. Withholding payment actually increased the bills. This is what I'd expect. ... What? You're withholding part of my invoice? Fine. I'll increase my hourly rate and/or bill more hours.

Me too ... need explanation ... Is the victim really giving up rights to sue those not in the settlement? It almost sounds like a poison pill to further action against non-settlers. Pay $20k. Lose first $1m of award. Settlement Trust empowered to demand/collect from non-settlers? So if jury awards $2m ... and assuming victim has their own lawyer (30% - 40% cut) helping fund the $20k needed ... and victim only gets that awarded above $1m ... then the victim ends up with how much ? Is it possible the victim would only get a small fraction of the award? IR smells like a big negative reworded to be a feature. I also just want an interpretation of the document title. "... THIRD MODIFIED FIFTH AMENDED PLAN" ... so is it the 5th amended of the 3rd modified ... or the 3rd modified of the 5th amended of the ???

Perhaps this should be spun into another thread. ... or perhaps it shouldn't be debated in the forum. @DJ72 ... Thank you for the post. Most of the numbers look reasonable. 94% were based on one-on-one contact. Makes sense as abuse needs privacy to happen. I question how it would not be nearly 100%. 82% were abused by a scout leader. Makes sense as abuse would not be tied to scouting if not done by a leader. 35.0% report that somebody else knew ... I'm sad as I can believe this number because there is knowing and there is suspecting and there is knowing there is possible abuse. ... In the past, a main failure mechanism that enabled abuse was the hesitation to accuse someone with a good reputation ... and accuse them of an inconceivable evil act. ... That hesitation was a main failure mechanism. .. The 35% makes sense because I could see the past where people were hesitant to report something they did not fully know or understand... and something that for most people is inconceivable. ... I pray people recognize now that they need to raise questions when they see G2SS violations and possible crimes. I have questions. 94% were based on one-on-one contact with children, then points out that this is inspite of prohibition on one-on-one contact. ... BSA did not always have the G2SS (Guide To Safe Scouting) requirements for no one-on-one contact. I think it was added sometime before I started. not sure when. late 1990s ?? ... I'd expect old scouters would be hard to change their ways. ... QUESTION - Has there been a statisical shift seen after G2SS explicitly said no one-on-one contact? Or is it too soon as it's only been in the last 25 years. 63.9% stayed in abusers stayed in scouting after scouting was informed. ... I read the footnote and it acknowledges a small sampling population and questionable methodology. ... Fine ... I only have knowledge via IVF where those scouters were removed. My gut feeling is that this number is wildly off. Perhaps, I'm just hoping. I don't know. From what I've seen, those who abuse are gone from scouting. Those who did not abuse but mishandled or weakly handled the abuse cases may still still be in scouting, but they were not the abusers. ... QUESTION ... Does this 63.9% sound right? ... 63.9% were still in scouting after scouting was informed? ... That does not match my understanding. But then again, I have not seen these exact cases. I have seen scouters removed and both the leader and their troop were notified that the person was not welcome anymore. But different circumstances.

Well understood. I'm just not read-up on mass torts where the lawyers are paid up front by the defendant before the award. I'm sure it happens as bankruptcy is used to address unresolved liabilities. ... It just feels weird ... or a great business to be in.

What is definition of "future victims"? With bankruptcy as a point of time... Is FCR for victims of future crimes? I'm assuming no because their damages would be paid for the future company (aka the new BSA) and future insurance ... or what replaces them. Is FCR for victims of past crimes that submit claims after the bankruptcy deadline? Complexity in mix of bankruptcy debt settlement versus class action like handling. Say the generic "Erin Brockovich" idea or the Mesothelioma idea. The award is made. Some victims are up front and others identified and supported later thru the trust. The representation didn't really start getting paid until award was made. With this, millions are paid to legal representation in-advance for work toward a damages settlement before victims get an award. This is a dark grey area of work that advances the settlement. I fear many of those victims would still want representation to submit their request to the trust. So then, fees are pulled by current FCR representation and contingent award fees pulled by a future representation. I'd really like to know if work (aka cost) is being worked on an hourly basis that really should be part of earning a contingent fee. Feels like a real mess that enables billing and fees without a balanced consideration for the victim.

Who are the "future claimants"? This is a bankruptcy proceeding and a CSA settlement. Is it businesses owed money that have not yet submitted a claim? Or is it CSA victims that have yet to submit? I understand work must be done, but this smells strange. It would be interesting to know if there is any crossover / connection between firms billing now and firms that also represent victims on a contingent basis.

Government can purchase land for many reasons. Happens all the time. Parks. Preserves. Some of the scout camps are well located to become future parks. It may be a very good opportunity to improve public lands. The only legal risk I see (not a lawyer) is if the sale is significantly below the appraised value ... even then an appraisal does not equal cash.

... same guys that came in to sell the solid gold class rings ...

Feels creepy to egregiously wrong: asking for payments first before victim gets cash while also being under contract to take a very healthy contingent percent.

So the hiring and work is not controlled by BSA or the court? The bills / work is controlled by those being owed money. ???

Greatly appreciate the links. I liked this sentence on bottom of first page... "The total time expended for fee application preparation is approximately 12.5 hours and the corresponding compensation requested is $7,627.00" Hourly rate to prepare the fee application is $610. Who are "The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors"?

@johnsch322 ... Wishing you the best. It's an ugly scaring crime. I'm not sure what else to say.

@johnsch322 ... This is what I wrote that I did not post. Let me know if it's inappropriate. If so, I'll ask moderators to remove. The trouble is absolutist statements such as "cannot relate" or "No one else in scouting has listened to them." Absolute statements block a forum for discussion with the intention that we exchange ideas and views. Case mentioned above, John Brady: The BSA records reflect an organized system, removal from position, blocking attempt to re-register. Significant effort was made to block this volunteer. This was 1968; the year society was preaching the evil of requiring seat belts in cars. Before email. Before internet. Before online databases. The records show that the perpetrator traveled 1000+ miles away and the paper-based system blocked him from re-registering. https://bsa-perpetrator-docs.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/john-l-brady.pdf The records also reflect extended military judicial handling. The military JAJ (judge advocate, joint??) documented 12 sets of parents would not let their kids testify in a court martial. The case went up multiple levels of command and into hospitals to be handled by doctors / psychiastrists. So the military legal system failed. The doctors and hospital failed. The parents failed. Yes, BSA failed too. ... The only positive I can say is BSA did block him from registering three months later in St. Louis. It all started with the first troop leaders (scoutmaster and committee members) taking this seriously. They removed the volunteer and communicated that information to the council to block the volunteer. For 1968 ... speaking to paperwork / record keeping ... This was impressive. Three months later a paper system blocked the volunteer 1000+ miles away. That itself means BSA took this very seriously. As ugly as this case is, it parallels other cases. I re-read 15 or so random cases. Most were the first LA Times listed. One in 1980s had detective T<forgot her last name> saying it was too late to file charges when it was within a year or so. Another had the city police chief sending records to BSA with request to not publicly release the records. Another in 1980s had charges brought for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". Another had the executive directory of a child rehabilitation clinic promising to not contact police as part of being able to get the interview. I have trouble accusing those from 50 years ago using today's standards, today's understanding and today's laws. The crime happened. The damage is real. The pain continues. ... BSA has fault, but so a wide wide cut of society. ... I just don't believe society in 1968 understood CSA or how handle it.

@johnsch322 ... Thank you for the kind response. This bankruptcy is painful and as you said old wounds are being re-opened. I agree with the lawsuit from the aspect that victims deserve to be heard. I do question the motivations of some involved, but overall most intended well. @johnsch322 ... I'll post what I wrote. Let me know if it's inappropriate. If so, I'll ask the moderators to remove.

I want to reply, but I don't want to be beat up over my thoughts and my opinions. They are clearly not welcome here in a forum created for scouters to discuss scouting.

Does that mean we to start a war of words with each other? Different interpretations of facts exist that reach different opinions. Either this channel is about the legalise of the bankruptcy or devolves into a yelling fest. Some people have been thru hell because of the past. Others have not. One group can bring their pain. The other can bring a moderating view. Each INDIVIDUAL has a right to their interpretation of what happened. Out of respect for the hard work of the moderators and the purpose of this channel, I've been avoiding posting. Can we keep this channel to the bankruptcy proceedings?