elitts

Most of the victims you've met were abused by people who were open about their preference for young children and would have been identified if anyone had asked around about them? Or were abused by people who had prior public records of CSA? Or were abused by people who just joined up as an adult leader and immediately began pulling kids off to the side to molest them? What you've called a "hypothetical" wasn't a hypothetical. It was a description of the basic MO of pedophiles according to all the documentation on the subject I've ever seen, including YPT. I mean if there genuinely are troops out there that had an unknown adult wander in asking to be a leader and cheerfully just handed them a badge and put them in charge of kids, I'd agree with you about there being negligence. But I know in the two troops and the pack I've been involved with as an adult, the only people who got admitted without much investigation were parents or grandparents of scouts, or aged out scouts from within the troop. Is this truly not the case in most places? So the victim and parents of victims are as guilty as the abusers if they don't go to law enforcement? No, having knowledge of a crime and not reporting it is not "aiding and abetting". There is no general requirement to report crime in the US. Failing to report as a mandatory reporter is a crime, but it's a different crime than child abuse (of whatever flavor) No, the way it usually went was: Did you hear about Joe abusing the Smith boy? The parents aren't making a report to the police because they don't want the child to have to testify and relive the experience. Oh, well I suppose they know what's best for their child, we should stay out of it. Except that the value of the program going forward and it's benefit to youth and the impact of the lawsuits and the bankruptcy upon the program is exactly why we are having a discussion about this at all instead of just liquidating everything and being done with it. If we were in a victim support group, I'd agree that this would be impolite in the extreme to bring up, but we aren't, we're in a BSA forum. I don't think we'll ever come up with a perfect solution to the issues surrounding the reporting of child abuse. Personally, the flaws in our legal system are always something of a concern to me when you start getting people talking about the idea of "people should report anything, even suspicions". It's an easy call if someone witnesses abuse or if you have a group of kids all telling you something happened or a victim coming forward with a clear story of what happened. But I start having issues with reporting when you aren't entirely sure what did or didn't happen. I always tend to think back to situations in my own life that could have easily been misinterpreted into one hell of a problem for me in the current climate even if I did eventually vindicate myself.

Moderator Note: I'm being admittedly over-bearing on the issue because of how fast it tends to spiral out of control, but I have deleted a few more comments and posts referencing the legal profession in general. It was a newer member, so I'm not issuing any reprimands, but I wanted to remind people that the rule is still in effect, even if I'm not as quick to see the posts over the weekend. For those of you who have been around for a while, I'd like to encourage you to simply flag posts that stray into dangerous waters rather than replying to them. Reporting them doesn't automatically result in a "ding" against the poster, the comments will be reviewed and a decision made. But it does actually generate an email notification to the moderators whereas without a report a comment may not get noticed until I get enough time to read the thread myself.

I believe there are some detectors that can detect the power source rather than the transmissions, but the good ones aren't cheap. Cynical and I have had this conversation before, so I'm responding because there are new folks reading who raised the issue, not to try and beat Cynical over the head with my response yet again. My primary issue with this key factor in determining liability is that most of the time with these cases (and other similarly heart-rending issues) the viewpoint seems to be that the very fact of a scout having been abused is considered prima facie (I think I used that right) evidence that the BSA is guilty of neglecting their duty to protect kids. The fact that an abuser may have changed their identity, took elaborate steps to hide their predilections, lied their way through an interview and then spent years gaining people's trust before beginning to abuse scouts is basically just considered "proof" that the BSA's screening process is negligent rather than considering the situation to be one that no organization could reasonably have prevented. And while the fact that other cases have been litigated and won by plaintiffs in the past might well be evidence of how a current case is likely to play out now; that doesn't mean that those cases "should" have won based upon the actual legal statutes. (as opposed to winning based upon the sympathies of a jury)

Maybe not ON the climbing wall, what about pulled off around behind it? Or stopped for a break on a canoe trip when the other boats float up ahead for a few minutes or in the ammo room of the shooting range? The only way I can think of the actually make sure every child is safe from sexual abuse would be to make virtually certain that every child is being continuously monitored by at least two different people who don't know each other.

I suspect part of the reason Scouts isn't being condemned from the rooftops is because for almost everyone in the country "The BSA" is their friends and neighbors in the troop/pack down the road, NOT the folks over in Irving, TX. It's harder to vilify an organization when it's made up of people you know. I suspect your notion that the BSA is sitting on mountains of "data" is incorrect. They may well have decades of "information", but the amount of money and time it takes to digitize historical paper records into usable "data" is frequently mindboggling. For a comparison, I work in the field of property tax. Most County Registers in Michigan have been digitizing documents (as opposed to microfiche) for about 15-20 years. And yet most counties have still only managed to digitize historical data back to about the 80s in the 20 years since that became an option. However, the BSA's information could certainly be turned over to a national organization for data conversion and research. See below If that could be handled in an impartial way and with an eye towards making productive changes, I wouldn't have any problem with it. However, my experience with US society tells me that we probably won't be capable of examining one organization "first" without the public assumption being that the problems only exist there simply because other organizations haven't been studied yet. Instead what often seems to happen is that whenever some new problem gets studied, the first few organizations to be examined get totally demonized as "the sole blemish staining our society" in public opinion as and only years down the road when we've finally discovered "holy crap, I guess this really DOES happen everywhere" do we get around to figuring out what kinds of societal changes need to be made to help fix a problem.

Where isn't a child at risk of being sexually abused? It's an unfortunate fact of life that you risk being hurt by being alive and you risk being hurt by other people as soon as you interact with them. The only way parents get through the job of raising their kids with their sanity intact is by convincing themselves that "it won't happen to my child"; unfortunately, sometimes they are wrong.

We give our Eagle Scouts a genuine felt Stetson at their Court of Honor. It's still the single most popular thing that new Cub Scouts talk about when they do the Webelos visit to a Troop Meeting. Hell, I even kinda wanted one myself when I first saw it, except that I can't tolerate hats in anything above about 65 degrees, so I'd never wear it and I'm too cheap to pay $100 for a hat I won't hardly wear.

It's called the "Activity Consent Form", I can't personally say how long it's been around, but at least since 2014 as that's when an article about it was written on the Scoutingmagazine blog. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/19-673.pdf

This is nonsense with absolutely zero basis in either the YP rules or common sense.

The issue with generalized discussion of attorneys in this thread revolves entirely around avoiding flaring tempers and hijacking of the thread, not protecting the reputation/honor of the field. Discussion of specific attorneys and their actions is permitted because some of the attorneys in this case are operating well beyond the standard role being a court representative/advocate for a client and so their actions may have a bearing on how things shake out. Whether or not someone says something that could be considered libelous isn't really a concern. That said, I have deleted your more generic comments regarding mass tort legal practices even though you weren't trying to be antagonistic, both because I've been trying to be even-handed about deletions (regardless of apparent motivation) and because all of the points you made have been well hashed out and I don't want to re-open the issue.

I meant what criminal conspiracy that the evidence we have thus far actually supports. The only one of those that you could even come close to with any of the statements or evidence I've heard of would be "Child Endangerment" but even that would be one hell of a stretch. Personally, I REALLY wish they had been able to file charges in at least a couple of places. With as widespread as the "whack a mole" priest shuffling was, I simply can't believe that there wasn't some kind of instructions in place making that a quasi-official church policy. Even if they couldn't make the charges stick, making a go at prying the lid off the church would have been worthwhile. And that's coming from a Catholic. (I don't want anyone to think I'm just a church hater)

As someone else mentioned, competency in bankruptcy litigation is what advisors are for, but there's no getting around the fact that someone (or some group) has to represent the masses based upon that advice. And while a cut-throat attorney may offer excellent advice on navigating a situation like this, the whole purpose of having a committee to represent the victims is that you actually need people with the viewpoint of a survivor. That simply isn't a mindset that a non-survivor attorney could effectively channel. And since I'm assuming that these guys had a choice in the matter and weren't volun-told, they are there willingly and with at least a fair idea of what they'd be up against. And your viewpoint of "They didn't do what I wanted done, so I think they've failed, but I don't blame them because they were nothing more than well-meaning stooges who never stood a chance anyway" strikes me as fairly condescending and puts me in mind of patting a little girl on her head and telling her "Don't worry, why don't you just go play with your dolls". Which crime exactly do you think the BSA conspired to commit? Let's try to avoid too much hyperbole here. While I'm sure that at some point over the last 100 years the occasional BSA official has done things there were overtly illegal, your feeling that something is "wrong" doesn't make it criminal.

Just to make it official, ThenNow correctly related the current policy on the discussion of lawyers within this (and related) threads. Generalized discussion about lawyers and their motivations is not acceptable; but specific discussion about any attorney involved in the case and actions they've taken or statements they've made are fair game.

I totally get why they'd be pissed off, but by the same token, I just can't fathom ANY way they could possibly have been included once the number of claims started skyrocketing. I mean, it took months to get a single additional group (the LCs) looked at and participating and that's a relatively homogenous group of organizations. Trying to add in every CO that wants in on top of that just seems like it would have been entirely unworkable.

This is one of those areas where it's hard (for me at least) to know how to approach the issue. Whenever I see someone making impassioned but incorrect statements I always have to argue with myself about correcting them. I'm always trying to decide "does this person actually want correct information or do they just want a chance to express their feelings?". On top of that, my second thought is usually, "regardless of whether or not the commenter wants/needs to be corrected, would leaving it alone result in other people getting incorrect information, and would that matter?" So sometimes I respond, and sometimes I hold my tongue. (or fingers) Frankly I think sometimes my decision depends on how argumentative I'm feeling in general.

No, a copyright violation doesn't require selling or a monetary exchange. Someone duplicating a copyrighted work and distributing it for free would be a violation as well. However, the nature of the use and the impact of the use on the market or the value of the copyrighted work DOES factor into the evaluation of the "Fair Use" defense to copyright infringement accusations. But in the context of my comment, all I was really trying to convey is that if someone is considering making patrol patches or a troop patch that isn't going to be distributed, they don't really need to be concerned about running afoul Copyright or Trademark infringement laws. (while a patch company would)

We had a patrol that wanted to use that patch for their intended "Sniper Patrol". The argument being that the blank patch was appropriate since "you never see a good sniper". But in the end the name got nixed by the SM on the grounds of "let's not name a patrol after a job dedicated to killing people".

If I'm dragging some conversations from business school up accurately, one reason why companies tend to be over-zealous about protecting their trademarks/copyrights even in fairly minor cases is that their ability to use the courts to redress violations depends on their having actively protected their interests in the past. In other words, if they were to simply ignore small-time patch producers now, they could very well have problems getting a judge to protect their interests against a similar sized producer in the future. I don't remember if that issue is one written into the law or simply the unofficial way the courts work though.

I just want to clarify for those reading, it's the production of patches by a commercial business that is the trademark/copyright violation, NOT the wearing of the patch by a scout. If some parent makes a dozen patrol patches for the use of their own troop and isn't selling them, that will generally not run afoul copyright protections.

This depends in large part upon the Den Leaders and Cubmaster. I know that when my son was a cub 6-7 years ago, he wasn't bored generally. Some of the Den meetings were a little boring when it was the "talk about it" style, but as long as many of the meetings involve going to do something they stay pretty engaged. The biggest issue is when Cubmasters start doing "parent" announcements and discussions at Pack Meetings while the scouts are expected to sit and listen. When I was CM I'd do a minute or two of "What to expect soon" with the Cubs sitting and listening, then I'd send them out to play a game while I went over the details and plans with the parents. Plus, Cookies at the end of Pack meetings is a sure way to make sure they don't mind the meetings as much.

Regardless of #2, I absolutely guarantee that #1 was a factor. There's no way the constant stream of record keeping problems I've seen discussed on here are new issues. Actually it really isn't, it's about keeping the courts from being burdened with cases that are practically impossible to actually litigate with confidence in the result because so much time has passed. SoL were invented well before the personhood of corporations and before the advent of the large class-action lawsuit with crazy awards. If a bad plan is likely to get you more money than no plan, the bad plan wins and rational people could vote for it. In the absence of a deal abuse claimants would basically get nothing because right now, they don't even have a legal claim against the BSA, only the possibility of a claim. If a liquidation DID happen, by the time all the higher priority claims got paid the chances of there being anything left for victims would be low. And if the BSA disappears, the ability of claimants to pursue claims against the insurance companies would be greatly impaired.

The problem I see with that list isn't so much the number of employees, it's the amount of "senior leadership". There are 22 people with titles that would indicate "senior leadership" out of a staff of 56, and that excludes the District Executives. To my eyes, that's WAY to many leadership positions for a staff that size. Of course without salaries and job descriptsions it's hard to know if they are truly "executive level" staff or if the councils simply suffer from title inflation the way banks do. But to provide some contrast, I work in a similar sized organization. It's a local government unit with a full time staff of like 53-54 and our monthly leadership meetings include a whole 9 people, including the Township Manager. (and that includes the part time fire chief)

My apologies for delayed action in some cases, I've been preparing for and then attending summer camp for the last 12 days or so and the scavenger conversation got unfortunate traction. All comments referring to lawyers as scavengers has been deleted along with those portions of responses that quoted the comments. No penalties are being issued at this time, but please take this as a reminder that the previously established rules for this thread still apply. No generalized bashing of lawyers (though comments on specific attorney actions are acceptable); No referring to victims as money-grubbing or anything of that nature; No comments or posts without actually asking a question, making a point or explaining your rationale. (ie: no one-liner snide or sarcastic posts)

I think it depends on what the adults think the "fun and wholesome" should look like. If the adults always think in terms of clean, easy and well-organized activities I think even if you keep the kids engaged while the activites are actually happening, you won't really excite them into wanting to come back. I'm picturing lots of handi-crafts, well organized standard games, uneventful camping/hiking. I think "adventurous" and "new and interesting" is far more important than trying to plan a "classicly fun" program. My secret to being a Cubmaster was to either stick with activities that were more of the "adventurous" variety (BB guns, archery, fires, knives, etc.), or to keep things new and interesting by taking the usual activities and then adding silly rules or restrictions to make it harder. Examples: Two-man-three-legged tag: Where the scouts had to pair up and then they had to stay connected. They could walk normally, but could only run while using 3 legs or less. Backpack tag: where the Webelos 2s were "it" but they had to carry Tigers on their back and while the Webelos were "It", only the tiger could tag people out. Marshmallow/toothpick tower building: Each team gets a box of toothpicks and a bag of marshmallows. But instead of the normal group effort, they had to pick builders and planners and the builders couldn't talk and the planners couldn't touch to marshmallows or toothpicks. Similarly, hikes were far more interesting with rules or games added in. My standard rule was "We don't need no stinking bridges..." and no-one but the "old folks" were allowed to use existing bridges. Or randomly deciding "Only the Bears can touch the ground here and they need to find a way for everyone else to cross"

The ongoing discussion in this thread wasn't ever directly about the LDS, Muttsy posted something fairly negative about the LDS in the Bankruptcy thread and there was a response or two from that, but it would likely have died at that point except that we started talking about organizational requirements associated with mandatory reporting and required reporting in general so the whole group of posts got broken out and a new thread was created. He didn't actually create a thread for the purpose of targeting the LDS. Frankly, yes, my preference for rules and laws is to institute the least restrictive/coercive policy possible that seems likely get the job done and then adjust from there if it proves to be less effective than desired. Going the route of "maximum impact" at the governmental level is just far too likely to generate unintended consequences that often are terribly hard to unwind. As far as the speed of response, well, I can't profess to be an expert on DSS (Dept of social services) response times; but as you indicated, the programs dedicated to an immediate response are the ones dealing with kids in crisis: "I can hear someone beating a child next door" or "I'm worried that this kid is going to harm themselves tonight" or "I think this kid is going to bring a gun to school tomorrow". If someone thinks a kid (or an adult for that matter) is in immediate danger from themselves or someone else then a "drop everything and call 911" response is warranted, But that's not really what we are talking about here because very few people are going to see or hear a kid being actively injured without either doing something or calling someone. Mandatory reporting laws were designed for non-immediate situations where someone becomes aware of an incident or concerning behavior that has already happened. Like a doctor finding a child with an STD or genital damage that could only be caused by sexual activity. Or a school counselor encountering a teen with sudden emotional/behavioral changes that indicate abuse; or in a more directly related example, a Scouter overhearing scouts talking about how someone spent the night alone at a leader's house. I wrote it that way because I was trying to use the actual terminology for the arguments you seemed to be making in an attempt to point out why I feel they represent flawed reasoning. Please see: Logical Fallacies.