CynicalScouter

Not until the 1990s and the Boston Scandal. Since then, it has. But prior? Nope.

Which was pretty much exactly what happened with the Catholic Church until the dam broke with the revelations of the scandal in Boston in the 1990s. After that, it all came out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States Moreover, as I've said, it isn't like people are advertising this.

Right, because the argument goes that it does no good to focus on things we have no control over. Can a den leader in Pack 123 do a thing about the bankruptcy? No. Can they even vaguely explain it? No. I would hoped that the COUNCILS would provide more information to give parents and leaders, but I cannot fault unit level leaders for not having the time or energy to try and track down this information.

Right, I will tell you that it is the adults and I've gotten several versions of "I've been in scouting XX years and never heard about it." To which my response is "Well did you think BSA or the victims are going to advertise 'I was abused' or 'John Scout was abused'?"

Yep. The news report indicated that commission reached out to National. I would be a stern letter/warning is on its way to Troop leadership now.

Depends on whether this is considered a "political event". https://troopleader.scouting.org/policy-on-scout-participation-in-political-events/ Policy on Scout Participation in Political Events Uniformed unit members and leaders may participate in flag ceremonies at political events and may lead the Pledge of Allegiance; however, they should retire after the ceremony and not remain on the speakers’ platform or in a conspicuous location where attendees or viewers could construe their presence as an endorsement or symbol of support. In addition, photos of candidates or Scouts in uniform or with BSA marks and logos are not allowed in political campaign materials of any kind. Volunteers and professionals must be alert to situations that would imply BSA favoritism for one candidate over another. Strict observance of our longstanding policy against the active participation of uniformed Scouts and leaders in political events is mandatory. And this applies to Scouters https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/bsa-scouter-code-of-conduct/

Bankruptcy: I tell them everything is in flux and that while we hope BSA survives we told the First Class/Star/Life folks to not wait and try to make Eagle ASAP. Abuse: Ye, it happened. No one doubts it. What the court is trying to figure out is how much BSA has to pay for letting it happen in their watch.

https://county17.com/2021/10/07/teens-share-their-book-concerns-with-commissioners-during-special-presentation/

Yep. More concern about the program and less about the scouts/victims. Look the other way. Don't talk about it. Maybe it will just go away. Focus on the positive, don't worry about the victims. Got to keep those campfires burning. No matter what.

This sentiment, which permeates many of the BSA defenders in this forum, disgusts me as well. As if a victims to justify or defend themselves or why they are seeking restitution from BSA? The argument seems to be that victims are not "real" victims or really seeking "justice" unless they go after EVERYONE involved in the sexual abuse, starting with the perpetrators. I am so happy that BSA-defenders get to sit in judgement of VICTIMS and decide whether the VICTIMS are doing enough. You know what folks? You do NOT get to decide whether VICTIMS are or are not doing enough to YOUR satisfaction. They have every legal right to pursue BSA (and the LCs and COs) in civil court/bankruptcy court. To sit there in smug condescension and say that you are not a "real" victim or that victims are only seeking "vengeance" unless they also try to seek out the perpetrators? I got news for you: the perpetrators did not file for bankruptcy protection to protect their assets from child sexual abuse claims. BSA did. The perpetrators did not spend millions on an ad campaign asking for victims to come forward. BSA did (as part of the bankruptcy claims bar date). How DARE the BSA-defenders sit there and judge whether or not the VICTIMS have done enough. The VICTIMS have SUFFERED ENOUGH. As far as I am concerned, they do not have to justify a THING to you from a moral standpoint and from a LEGAL standpoint they will have to provide evidence of their claim, but no judge is going to say "You cannot recover damages from BSA because you did not find the perpetrator". I'm going to give you all a little lesson in civil procedure: it is called an impleader. If BSA wants to make the claim that it is not liable for the abuse because the perpetrator was at least partially responsible, then BSA (let me repeat this) BSA can go file a third-party-impleader complaint against the perpetrator. The BSA can then get damages recovered/back from the third-party/abuser. The classic example is Mary files a lawsuit against John for rear-ending her car at a stoplight. John then impleads Susan who rear-ended HIS car into Mary for his own damage (John's car) and the damage that happened to Mary's car. Susan is now co-defendant (in the case of Mary vs. John and Susan) and third party defendant (John v. Susan). In the case of BSA: Scout is abused by Scoutmaster BUT the BSA and the LC are negligent for allowing the abuse to occur. Scout sues BSA and LC (Scout vs. BSA and LC). Then BSA and the LC sue Scoutmaster for recovery (BSA and LC vs. Scoutmaster). The case caption would read Scout, Plaintiff vs. BSA and LC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintffs vs. Scoutmaster, Third Party Defendant If BSA-defenders absolutely insist that the victims are only seeking "vengeance" unless they also sue everyone else, keep in mind that at this point that shifts the legal burden. The burden NOW is on BSA if it fees that the "real defendant" should be the perpetrator to find that person and file a third-party-complaint or impleader and make the abuser a co-defendant. In closing, BACK OFF THE VICTIMS and start asking BSA more questions.

I looked. The votes came back in May 2017 https://www.andersonadvocates.com/media-advisory-voting-complete-results-tallied-in-archdiocese-of-st-paul-minneapolis-bankruptcy-case/ That said, the judge STILL rejected both plans, even though 90%+ of the survivors were in favor of their plan. https://www.andersonadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Archdiocese-Ballot-Report-Tabulation.pdf The udge ruled in effect NEITHER were confirmable in December 2017. Memo: Denial of Plans Order Denying Confirmation of Archdiocese Plan of Reorganization Order Denying Confirmation of Unsecured Creditors Committee Plan of Reorganization My May all sides reached a deal that was confirmed in September 2018 Confirmation Order

Yep the question now becomes 1) Does the plan get 50%? 2) 66 2/3% (which would allow for a BSA only release/toggle plan)? 3) 75%+? I think 1 could happen. I've said before I see no chance of 2, and 3? Forget it.

Right now that "Evaluating Entity" can only make suggestions. BSA is under NO obligation (except for limited data reporting) to do anything the Entity asks them to do. And the oversight committee has NO specific number of seats for victims; they could be outvoted and overwhelmed. What I want to see is something like a monitor with enforcement powers, the ability to terminate BSA folks at will, etc. Similar to what some stronger police monitors have when police departments get put under consent decrees. And YP that means something and isn't hidden. Do what USA Gymnastics has done: report data and yes, name names of scouters (in the case of USA Gymnastics it is coaches) that have been removed. Right now I can pull up a list of List of Suspended and Restricted Persons. https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/suspended_members.html BSA will be forced, I think, to do this for BSA folks thrown out of scouting.

I didn't know that either. There was mention of a statute that applied ONLY to asbestos cases of 75%+ but that was used as a frame of reference only. So, BSA needs 66 2/3% to get out (or a cramdown). But the LCs and COs (and LDS is in the COs category) is going to be even higher. Also mentioned was the failed Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis bankruptcy: two plans (victims plan and archdiocese plan) simultaneously submitted and rejected AND accepted (Stang misspoke), back to mediation they went.

And so therefore the victims should get nothing? That's the math sheet here? It's ok to abuse 82,500 scouts, so long as 825,000 or 8,250,000 are served? Sorry you got abused but the BSA has got to keep those campfires glowing.

See Hartford deal, Supra. If (big if) if the Hartford deal is OKed Century and the smaller insurance companies have NO reason to come in a penny higher per claim in any future settlement talks.

Here is a hint: when the majority of LCs have to pay out less than 14% of current assets to get out from underneath millions upon millions in liability? That isn’t fair.

Good bets. I will never fathom people who defend the BSA (and LCs) at all costs, no matter what.

BSA decided to go into bankruptcy. BSA decided to try to cut a deal to get 3rd parties covered by their bankruptcy (LCs and COs). They own this mess.

By the way and I know this first hand for my council: there are TONS of donors ready to come in and fund after the BSA and/or LCs come out. Trust me: the $500 million that the LCs have to put up will be back in place inside of 3-5 years. Cry me a river. I wish I could sit in on the TCC tonight but will just wait for the video tomorrow.

And what is the exchange rate? How many Cub Scout campouts absolve BSA from its civil liability for a Tier 1 child sexual abuse, hmmm? BSA cannot and should not use today’s children as human shields for its corporate negligence in how it handled child sexual abuse.

The TCC plan discussed in April was even more generous: LCs could keep 2 years operating expenses.

I consider the current scouts secondary indirect victims of BSA’s. bad choices. The judge has said she is considering their interest in seeing scouting survive. But victims don’t just disappear because the organization does good works elsewhere.

Yep. If the councils want to be discharged they need to go into their own bankruptcies and not try to dodge.

Then you are the exception. Most councils are offering 14% or LESS of assets. Many are below 10%. The LCs are holding out IN GENERAL. And when this plan blows up and the BSA toggle-plans out the 1600 lawsuits against LCs go live. Then we will see some real dollars for victims. Then LCs will rewlly start to pay. As previously noted: the 40+ councils that make up CA, NY, and Hawaii/Guam have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases the day BSA leaves bankruptcy. The next day those lawsuits go “live” and about a day after that those 40 councils go into bankruptcy themselves.