fred8033

Absolutely. If a lawyer hands in a 50/50 split of ballots (or anywhere close) than the submissions don't strongly influence the result. If the ballots all lean one way or another, it can strongly sway the vote. ... Seems like a game right out of TV Survivor.

This really feels like it needs to simplify down to BSA's bankruptcy. Get rid of the external distractions. Remove LC contributions and protections. Remove insurance company contributions and protections. Get this back to the original topic; BSA bankruptcy. How much can BSA contribute and keep running as an on-going concern. There are just too many tangents to coordinate well to any sort of closure.

Can lawyers submit the votes for the clients they represent? Or do they need signatures of the actual clients? ... and on a sarcastic note ... what if hundreds / thousands of those signatures all happen in a few minutes right before the deadline and are mailed from the same place? So that should be acceptable to preserve clients rights against a deadline right?

@RememberSchiff ... Still a really cool achievement. Be proud.

Interesting defense. Does it prove a separate entity or just further demonstrates a dysfunctional situation. For years, units would go into banks and an EIN wasn't required. Then about 15 years ago (??), it became required. So, bankers would share their computer screen with unit leaders and go to the IRS web site and create a new non-profit to get the EIN .. right at the banker's desk ... and apply for an EIN. Effectively, opening the check book created a separate independent identity. So, ownership was unclear. Registered BSA leaders were subverting the CO authority. Of the units I have led, I know at least three that did that. The church had zero access to the bank account and the church non-profit status was not directly used. Theoretically, the church owned the unit per the charter, but nothing was setup that way.

A new unit number too. Promotes a new separate identity so that previous history is previous history. Probably legally meaningless, but it would help identify that it was a different organization.

Until fairly recently, that's how most organizations worked. Vetting was seen as a competency question and weeding out evil.

I have lots of CO / unit leader related questions ... Questions triggered by our own scouting unit. We cleaned up files no one wanted to store in their own garage. We were chatting about unit history. ... etc ... QUESTION #1 ... Establishing CO liability ... This seems like it will not be easy at all for probably up to half the units? Does that sound right? Our unit doesn't have any reported cases from any time ... I believe. ... but if it did ... Reason #1 Lack of historical CO knowledge ... A few of our leaders know our unit had multiple COs. Last 20+ years under one church ... before that a fire department ... before that another church. ... I'm not sure you could find the rechartering paperwork for our unit from the 1980s as record systems changed and councils merged and threw away paper files. ... I doubt you could find alive the people that did the paperwork. Even then, I think we had years where we were chartered by one organization but met elsewhere. ... So if a case was from May 1979, I think we'd be hard pressed to "prove" who chartered the unit. It seems a large percent (at least 20% ... 40%? ... 60%?) will have a hard time "proving" who the CO was at the time of the incident. If you can't prove, does a church become liable because they met there? Or for a unit that was chartered as "parents of" met at a church??? ... My question is it seems establishing CO liability will not be automatic or easy at all. For some yes. For many no. I'm not sure the scout's own records will be evidence of proof. ... It seems like you need the paperwork with the signature of the charter org exec for that exact year. Reason #2 Accuracy of council records ... BSA previously legally penalized for fake records. Ghost units. Ghost membership. ... BSA notorious for out of date / inaccurate records. Many units had leaders on the registration that left a year or two earlier. Many had current leaders that failed to get on the registration for years. ... Until fairly recently, BSA's membership records have been bad. Reason #3 Acknowledgement of signature ... There have been cases where the paperwork was signed by someone else. I'm not sure the CO even knew they renewed the charter. I'm betting you can find historical evidence of the DE signing. In ours, I'm betting the SM may have expedited paperwork at times. QUESTION #2 ... Inheriting CO liability from another CO If a unit moves charters ... and this is very common ... does the new CO inherit liability? Reason #1 Purchasing companies inherit the liabilities of the purchased companies. Reason #2 Often material possessions are transferred when COs are changed. (bank accounts, tents, stoves, trailers, etc). QUESTION #3 ... Document retention by unit volunteers ... I fear even asking this one. Are units required to retain documents? We are "registered" BSA leaders and there are multiple lawsuits. Our unit purged files. ... No one even thought about lawsuits. But we had 10+ cardboard file boxes of annual planning, membership, advancement, rechartering, dues, finanes, Troopmaster backups, etc. We purged almost all. We said we're depending on ScoutNet and ScoutBook. Though I'm not sure I care as we were never told to keep files and we're not subject to a suit right now ... but ...

My only frustration was that most of it was passable though it will trigger debate on what is fair ... what is equitable ... not everyone agrees. The problem I had was one video then went on an ugly tangent that was introduced very late in the training and seemed to be from another course or another agenda. Overall the training was good.

Yes and no. The difference is when. 1970s/1980s/1990s yes. Since 2000, I pray not. Time Frame --> Mandatory reporting & Enlightened understanding of CSA ... Very different ... Time frame absolutely creates a big difference. Most BSA cases (we are talking about) are BEFORE the nation well understood abuse and before scout leaders became legally required to report. USA Gymnastics incidents are very recent. Late 1990/2000s/2010s. Well after CSA became understood. USA Gymnastics leaders MUST have fallen within a mandatory reporter role. Either they were responsible for running the medical program or they were educators or ???? ... ... They must have been mandatory reporters. What really surprises me is why was the Nassar allowed to be alone with underage girls during an exam. Why was a nurse not in there? Why didn't someone say practices need to reflect modern standards? If this was any clinic in my state, that would be the expected standard. This also really surprised me. The FBI (and others???) recieved the reports within the last 3 to 5 years. Very recent. ... These cases were reported after enlightenment. After laws being changed. After law enforcement has been taught to take this seriously. How did they fail !!! In previous posts, I posted about large numbers of incidents excused away / minimized / labeled boys being boys, etc. Gynastics. Hockey. etc. ... If multiple groups are not taking these reports seriuosly now, imagine how police would have processed such reports from the 1970s / 1980s. I must admit that I am shocked by recent cases when they come up. I always think we are more enlightened now. ... maybe each group needs to go thru it's pain ...

Pending request from Deck Shifflet to depose Jackie Lemanczyk about the missing appendix in the aggregator's manual.

I'm sure it will be used to mitigate penalties. Mass signing. Cutting and pasting signatures. no penalty because of time pressure. ... but ... "changing details"? ... submitting for claimants that had changed their minds? ... duplicate? (depending why? to get numbers up?) ... saying claims would be anonymous? At what point does it change from time pressure to a violation? When does circumventing clearly understood expectations become willful fraud?

I realize accusations are often more harsh than final findings. From the above, it really feels professional discipline should happen; at minimum some type of chastisement / penalty. Even "blank claims had signatures" seems like explicitly wrong. Exactly how many corners can be cut before someone is disciplined. Seems shallow to defend it with time pressure to get in under the deadline. Is there any chance this will result in professional discipline? Heck, if I was an insurance agent, I'd really want to force that to hammer down future legal shenanigans.

Agreed. Anyone can file. It does not mean you have standing or you are invested in the result. I was trying to differentiate the "as invested" and voting on a settlement. ... To be honest, it's incredibly weird to me that those voting on the result would not be already determined to be rightfully invested.

Just because you filed does not mean you have legal standing. It means the paperwork has not been resolved and decided. One decision can be that you don't have legal standing. There will definitely be cases thrown out for many reasons and probably including standing. Perhaps some were already settled once and lack standing to sue again.

Perhaps I'm just too jaded ... I'm not a lawyer. I have ready many court decisions over the years. Bad habit formed after taking college constitutional law course. From what I've seen, courts justify decisions to get a fair result as much as they interpret existing law. I could see somehow the commerce clause interpreted this whole situation effectively feels unworkable.

No. It's not that they are "as invested". It's that it's just too hard to figure out right now and the answer is being kicked down to the future to clarify. Again ... "As invested" ... Emotionally absolutely. Morally yes. The question is legal standing is not clear. That's the debate. If they don't have legal standing to sue, then no they are not as invested even if they went thru something incredibly ugly and hurtful. ... Current legal actions (voting on settlement) can't be based on possible future legislative action. The debate is can it be based on probable legal standing as it's too difficult at this exact moment. ... but ... if it's clear they don't have right to funds, they don't get a say. ... that was the reason for the comment about Uruguay votes. ... there is a ridiculous aspect to those without legal rights voting on a settlement.

As always, thank you. The detailed reasoning is very useful and I am grateful. My interpretation of your writing is that potentially not a single claim is time-barred in this bankruptcy. Potentially. BSA owns the program and BSA has been incorporated in SOL open states. So even if the incident is in a closed state and the unit / CO and LC were all in closed states ... and even if the DE / SE and BSA oversight individuals' offices were in closed states, the BSA organization itself was incorporated in open states. ... effectively jurisdiction shopping ... @CynicalScouter ... Going for a far stretch that I could see some court pulling in. ... At some point, it seems the commerce clause of the constitution comes in. How does an organization as BSA function across nation wide when individual states such as NY can change laws effectively putting companies like BSA out of business. I really question whether organizations like BSA should exist anymore. Instead, should BSA be designed more like a standards body (think IEEE) that is funded by members and provides structure and standards. Places like Philmont should be also independent to serve nation wide under that same organization body. To be honest, I bet BSA often sees itself more like IEEE than McDonalds.

@ThenNow ... It's hard to keep this dispassionate. It's an ugly subject obviously. Ugly for victims. And ugly to those watching it go thru the process. I'm not sure if SiouxRanger has said it that many times himself. He's probably reflecting what many believe. Many find it hard to understand how those with effectively no legal standing are involved in voting on this. QUESTION - Is that true? They have no standing? Or is it that their potential claim against their LC is time-barred, but they can still pursue BSA. If both, then it seems fairly easy to look at the fifty states and broadly remove those in time barred states as settlement voters as they don't show any standing. The grey area are those who's standing is unclear. ... It just seems wrong to have those who would clearly have no legal standing vote.

@HelpfulTracks has it right. The advancement requirement is for the individual. Though I could see it as a sign of achievement, having it as an explicit requirement seems wrong. The requirement seems ambiguous if you are looking to weigh a result. The GTA is taking it more like a process; a conversation. If the SM does not think the scout is doing enough, the SM should talk to the scout. Have a conversation. That's what the GTA is saying. The GTA is also saying it's wrong to arbitrarily say now after-the-fact. The unit needs to have clear expectations before the scout starts. The unit needs to discuss with the scout why those expectations are not being med. The scout needs a chance to explain, defend, change behavior. The unit needs to do it early and not wait to judge. AFTER-THE-FACT judgement is a sign of failure of the unit; not the scout.

So you are saying that a failed suit by victim against an LC can't be escalated to the Supreme Court where the SC could agree with the US trustee that says the LCs (who were not in bankruptcy) can't get protection from the bankruptcy of their business partner? Perhaps there is an easier way to agree. Are there case law examples of business partners (separate companies) or franchise relationships where the bankruptcy of one discharges the debt of the other?

How would those 24 absolute and 1 only in extreme (WI, NY already done) affect the claims? Would the LCs and COs in those states be protected by SOL? I'm assuming BSA is not protected because of jurisdiction shopping and BSA's location and federal court.

I just don't see that working. Too much ugliness in the combination of things that could happen.

We can always do more. Always. ... BUT, it's not automatically negligent or liable or even bad if we are not doing everything we can. ... What is reasonable? YPT and the current structure seems like a good standard / expectation. Perhaps this is a different thread, but what is better? What is the next YPT improvement? I fear the next improvement and the next and the next will eventually destroy scouting and it's better to not have the organized youth program. The same reasoning can go for many youth organizations.

... BUT ... Say a year from now a victim sues a LC in state court ... Suit asserts that LC is not legally protected because it was in bankruptcy. Finds in favor of victim ... a believable finding. Gets appealed. Goes up. Eventually, the whole protection could be found illegal per US trustee current position. At this point, the money is gone. It's in the trust and a good amount is probably spent. I doubt the LC could retract the money in a timely way.