ThenNow

I wish she was trauma-informed enough to realize how offensive her repeated self-aggrandizement is to us. How much is she (not) earning per month, again?

Hm. I am grateful to hear this, given what I've learned from friends who are represented by some of the callcenter "aggregating" firms. And, as another pro se claimant, I am sympathetic and agree with Eagle70. I have third perspective on top of those two. Ghosts. First, the Century insurance attorneys did a great job briefing how the callcenters solicited and collected claims, including: 1) awarding individual and team bonuses for claims "signed up" daily and weekly; 2) falsely validating claims even when a caller decided not to go forward based on the questions asked, and 3) a fair number of such claims were found to facially deficient but the agent decided they could "fill in the blanks" later. Critically, some of the pay for play attorneys who were not even tort litigators simply signed the POC and submitted them, then ghosted clients while waiting for their 40%. As an attorney, claimant, former lead plaintiff in a (successful) class action suit, their behavior was moral malpractice IMNSHO. Legal malpractice? Probably not. Unconscionable in either case. However, some of the firms that paid for assistance to identify potential claimants in this case, spent 100 hours interviewing and vetting their clients before completing and having their clients sign the POF. One of my friends is with such a firm and I asked him how it was going during that phase of the case. "It's brutal," he said, "Interviewing and learning the experience of these men is the worst thing I've ever had to do..." Do It Yourself. Second, as a pro se claimant in a not altogether closed state under the Shades of Gray chart, thinking of giving someone 40% was unbearable. If my award turned out to be significant and I served up to them my collected records of impacts and the narrative I prepared was not something I was willing to do. My POC was 130 ish pages long and the Trust Claim added a huge pile because I included research and a brief on fraudulent concealment. That defense was based on the fact my LC Executive was at least complicit in the abuse of many boys by my SM while managing another IVF process for CSA 2 miles from the location of my Troop. I knew the ASM who was booted for abuse at our sister Troop. One of my best friends and his brothers, as well as their dad, were in that Troop. That SE was also aware of 13 other BSA abuse cases in my area of the state over the time period I was in Scouting. I attached all of the IVF and newspaper reports where there were criminal prosecutions and civil awards. Anywho, my documentation was significant. I am due whatever comes of this. I recognize I am not the typical pro se claimant. Class Action. Third and finally, I was lead plaintiff in a class action case where the attorneys received a large percentage of a multi-million dollar claim, spread across 1200 plaintiffs in the certified class. The case was for wrongful denial of a valid depression treatment Aetna claimed was "investigative and experiment," even though every major hospital in the US offered it. Almost all of the other plaintiffs were contacted by the firm based on the records of the insurance company and there was simple validation of their attempt to get treatment. It wasn't needed. Did my attorneys deserve a percentage of their award even though they did very, very little for 1199 plaintiffs in the class? I believe they did and earned it. The case we prepared to prove my claim and to certify the class was a massive amount of work, expensive and Aetna had an army of attorneys fighting us. Conclusion. This is complicated overall, much less so here. As I've said in this and other threads on the forum, the do-nothing, ghosting attorneys and firms do not deserve 40%. I have several friends that came through their 1-800 lines who have gotten horrible representation. My view is the scenario is exacerbated when firms have 100's of sparsely vetted clients and then signed the POC against the admonition of Judge. I say, go after them and ferret out the unethical lot. -The End PS - Forgive speed typos. I'm supposed to be on vacation...

Greetings, all, and Happy Christmas/Blessed Holidays. My wife calls this approach to life and morality, "relative godliness." While many here would not like to associate themselves with the cultural shift toward a subjective application of "truth" and "what is right," the willingness to practice subjective and relative responsibility and accountability shows itself rather often (in some). In Scouting, I learned to account for myself, standing apart and ready to "be counted," distinct from what others have done around me. I did what I did. That is what I must be held to. "Wait, say you!" Might there be mitigating circumstances or justifiable self-defense in response to someone else's behavior toward me? Yes. However, that is completely irrelevant here. BSA had no assailant. Blameless or not blameless. They came up short or hit it out of the park. Which is it? Hold me to what I did or failed to do. Don't look at my friend or brother or the family down the block. "Joe" is completely and totally irrelevant in the above equation. His actions cannot and do not exonerate or absolve the "I" for his battery. Young foolish me: "Mom, everyone is doing it, really! Why can't I? Don't you understand? Doesn't that make sense?" Mom: "No. Go mow the grass before your dad gets home. Cross hatch it while you're at it and make it snappy." So there.

Better to catch the 3%, but will the fingerprints catch what the background check won’t/didn’t? I hate this statistic. “The fingerprint scans will only show if there is a criminal history record. For an offender to have a criminal record they must first be convicted of a crime. Only 3% of all predators are ever convicted. Background checks will not catch roughly 97% of predators. Why? Because there are many steps that must happen for a conviction to occur. Each step only reduces the chances the predator will be charged with a crime.” http://www.o.com/blog/2019/8/22/quit-relying-on-background-checks-and-sex-offender-registries-to-protect-children#:~:text=Background checks will not catch,be charged with a crime.

I watched it too, also after consideration and preparation. For once, I am going to have an opinion that diverges from my brother John. As always, the survivors were excellent and their retellings, vulnerability and powerful force of presence unassailable. Patrick Boyle was very good and it was great to see him on camera presenting the process he went through in researching and writing his critical book. Kosnoff was a throwaway for controversy sake. Added little. The MJ v Big Mac face-off? Meh. It was so obviously a predetermined narrative and story arc that I lost respect for the filmmakers and any veiled attempt to present the full picture. Michael Johnson was portrayed gloriously with dramatic settings, outdoor scenes and swooning music. The questions put to him were collegial and designed to carry the arc. I found his all too frequent jocularity not only damaging to the credibility of his "testimony," but also less than attractive. I rolled my eyes through several of the heroic warrior sequences. I am trying to be objective. And as for Mr. McGowan, I understand he was the executive to whom Mr. Johnson reported. Fair enough to have them across from each other to slug it out. But look at the setting he was in compared to Johnson. It looked like an interrogation room. I don't know Steve McGowan, but he was a terrible spokesperson, in my opinion. He looks like a bully, responds defensively and is not the most eloquent. Have on on-camera conversation with a BSA spokesperson and Michael Johnson. McGowan was terrible and deserves to be skewered. That doesn't mean it was good filmmaking. Again, my opinion. Last point. One of the two of them is clearly lying. Michael Johnson said flat out it's McGowan. McGowan would not say that, but repeated what I have heard others say who know what went down between MJ, McGowan and the BSA brass juxtaposed and with Johnson's statements and actions since leaving. The word they all use is "shocked." I've heard that said by three different people, one of them I know well and trust. Did I praise and thank Mr. Johnson when he cried and asked forgiveness during the press conference given by Jeff Anderson? Yes, I did. It was healing. Have I since begun to question Johnson's telling, motive and transparent full disclosure? Yes, I have. Someone needs to do a better job with this overall "story." Doing it in a feature length documentary will never allow that to happen. -The End (fade to black and cue the dramatic music)

You may find this of interest. It is BSA's response to the non-settling insurers and certain claimants' requesting to pause the Trust process, per the looming spectre of Purdue. Dist.D.Del._1-22-cv-01237_240 (1).pdf

Paragraph 13 of the Youth Protection Non-Monetary Commitments in the Plan, which the Trustee now oversees: Volunteer Screening Database a) The BSA will work with the YPC to assess how the names of adult perpetrators of child sexual abuse in Scouting and other information can be made public or used in connection with a database accessible to other youth serving organizations. Specifically, the BSA agrees to work with the YPC on a protocol that makes confirmed past child abusers in Scouting, and future confirmed child abusers in Scouting, publicly known. b) The protocol will take into account factors including: (i) the desire to make public adult perpetrators of child sexual abuse in Scouting; (ii) adequate protections for survivor identities; (iii) consideration regarding the protection of third parties, including survivor family members and volunteers; (iv) a notification process regarding any publication; (v) issues related to privacy and liability related to publication; and (vi) the potential appointment or retention of an appropriate neutral party to supervise the evaluation and review of the VSD. c) The BSA will take a leadership role and re-engage with other YSOs and agencies including but not limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to explore the feasibility of and advocate for a shared national database of adults who have been excluded from working with youths for youth protection related offenses. d) The Trust Agreement shall be modified to provide the Settlement Trustee with the authority to request an order of the Bankruptcy Court relating to the publication of materials included in the VSD, no earlier than one year after the Effective Date. The Plan shall be amended to specifically provide that the Bankruptcy Court retain jurisdiction to adjudicate such request. All parties in interest, including the Reorganized Debtors, shall have the right to object to and contest any request made by the Settlement Trustee. Footnote to Paragraph 15(a): The BSA and YPC shall consider the best way to utilize the redacted Proofs of Claim filed in the BSA chapter 11 cases, as well as information from the VSD.

Here is a taste. Please forgive any wonky formatting on the cut and paste. BSA has issued various publications available to scouts, parents, and the general public. The Boy Scout Handbook typically contains the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. It also contains a description of troop leaders. The Seventh Edition of the Handbook was copyrighted in 1965 and reprinted in 1967. It states: "First, there’s your Scoutmaster. What a wonderful man he is! He spends hours figuring out how to give you fun and adventure in your troop. He takes special training to learn exciting new things for you to do. He is present at every troop meeting and goes hiking and camping with the troop. He is the friend to whom you can always turn to for advice. He coaches the patrol leaders. Why does he do all this? Because he believes in Scouting, because he likes boys and wants to help them become real men." The Seventh Edition also directs scouts to obey their Scoutmasters. “A Scout is Obedient. He obeys his parents, Scoutmaster, patrol leader, and all other duly constituted authorities.” The Eighth Edition of the Handbook was copyrighted in 1972 and reprinted in 1973. The Eighth Edition states: “Over there watching things is your Scoutmaster. He’s a great guy. He gives hours of his time to you and the troop. And do you know why? Mostly because he knows Scouting is important to his city and nation. Besides, he is interested in boys.” The Ninth Edition of the Handbook, copyrighted and printed in 1979, again states that the Scoutmaster “is the friend to whom you can always turn to for advice” and directs scouts to follow the rules of their troop. The Ninth Edition is dedicated to “the American Scoutmaster who makes scouting possible,” and directs scouts to be “loyal” and “true” to their Scout leaders. In 1970, BSA published the “Parent’s Book.” It states that “Scouts benefit immensely from companionship with [their Scoutmaster],” who is a “man of good character.” The Parent’s Book also states that the Scoutmaster is “the kind of guy [scouts] would like to be,” and that the Scoutmaster has “the unique ability to get inside a boy and gain his confidence.” It states that the Scoutmaster has a “profound influence” on boys. Finally, the Parents Book states that the Scoutmaster is a “mature adult of sound character,” and lists the “desirable qualities” for which a Scoutmaster is selected.

“Bowing almost to the Scoutmaster” is not what I said or implied. It is passive aggressively very patronizing and demeaning.

May I see the written materials that support your assertion, comparable to the published BSA manuals and papers distributed in the 60’s and 70’s which I referenced? I’ve posted excerpts on other threads, but a can drag them out again. I’m not speaking theoretically, in broad brush societal “bad ol’ days” terms, as I see you doing. I’m talking quite specifically and factually. When you can do this, I’ll take your comments as evidence vs personal opinion and generalizations to fit a narrative.

I sort of don't believe we're ploughing this dirt again, but there is little I don't believe about this situation after enduring the last 1294 days. All of the societal norms and reporting jumbo mumbo gumbo aside, no other US YSO, save the the Catholic and LDS Churches, elevated men to the position of adulation and deference BSA did. Period. Both of those words are key; children and parents were instructed to elevate to pedestal height and be enormously trusting of Scoutmasters, in particular. Still, it spread across all uniform-wearing adult leaders. You may say, "Now hold on a minute there, Baba Looey!" but I was there. I saw it. I did it. So did those around me. I just got off the phone with my mother and she went on and on about how trusting she and dad were and how it seemed like the "best possible thing for me." (She also said she couldn't believe it when I didn't let my younger brothers join. Well, she didn't know the rest of the story, as PH used to say.) Maybe we were just rubes, you argue? Maybe. Ask around. I think you'd be told you're wrong. Read the 1972 Scoutmaster's Handbook and other BSA literature to parents of the era. I had a national leader tell me "they should burn those books because they amount to, A pedophile's handbook and a "groomer's best friend." Even I was shocked to see some of that stuff on paper. When kids and parents are told to, effectively, revere and give a very wide berth to someone's leadership, decisions, and actions, it's a powerful thing, especially then. I never saw such literature published and distributed to pave the way for such reverence and deference to my coaches, band directors, Key Club faculty sponsor, choir director...it never happened. Does that create an entirely different moral, social and psychological paradigm in which people act? C'mon, man. Of course it does. -The End PS - It's good to be back.

Bless you for your compassion and empathy, but as a CSA survivor this is a little much and wading into troubling. If you would consider dialing down the imagery and potentially triggering language, I would appreciate it. Yes, I know. Some of us speak of our abuse and the impacts, but I think we have earned the right to do that; it is not musing or speculation. Thanks a bunch.

Months away and it seems like only yesterday. The more things change, the more they stay the same. "It's like deja vu all over again." I have some thoughts but want to shamble around in this dream state for a bit.

Q: I recognize the Council merger wrangle is largely precipitated by the financial crunch due to the case, but this conversation seems to have taken us well off the bankruptcy discussion path. No? The wander has gone so far as to find an "I quit if they do that" bench for Vol Scouter. That sounds depressing for Scouting. Let's talk happy talk like how will Judge Houser direct the sussing out of potentially fraudulent claims or how onerous might the questionnaire be or place bets on how much the trust process will cost or if the Coalition gets their money or not or if the STAC can function collegially. There are so many joyful things to talk about, people. 😉

Yes. I’ve heard from insiders 3-4 years, always with an “ish” or +/- in the footnote. I doubt that’s tracking with the closing date for the Independent Review. Who knows. Not moi.