ThenNow

As in, why I did not say anything?

Exactly what can’t you understand? Do you mean literally or the complex psychological conundrum inherent in making dark disclosures related to the child/adult and powerless/powerful dynamic?

Thanks. I do appreciate that, especially from this group.

For my part, I offer two points: 1) I literally was looking at my dad and thought about telling him. I knew my dad would 'kill' my Scout Master so I said nothing. I did not want my dad to go to prison nor ruin the Troop I loved. There were 10 people in my family and we would't have survived without him, not to mention the pain it would have caused. I was 10 and never again thought of telling an adult, though it continued for 6 years; and 2) I became aware just a few years ago that other parents/adults, besides those complicit or tangentially involved none of whom had kids in Scouting, were aware. The parents/dads only challenged him as to their own boys: "Touch my kid and you're dead."

1) Allegations were leveled, shown to be factual, the judge ruled that this was a no-no, and the TCC and LC's, at least MTC as an example, reached an agreement. I don't believe the substance was disclosed. The unresolved issue, unless it was covered in the settlement agreement, is whether there is a reversionary interest held by the Debtors in the even of charter revocation or relinquishment. 2) I'm almost certain this is going on, but whether it is the sticking point, I don't know. My bet is, it's not. Just my gut feeling from all I know and have read on the docket and in press coverage. Some closed state LC's have produced and just said, "You can look, but you ain't gonna touch." That is a problem, however, because the BSA and insurance companies want all LC's protected to close the deal. 3) You guys are better positioned to opine than I, but offer my anecdotal pennies. I recall back when I was involved with our LC and OA Lodge, 'fast and loose' might well describe the most utilized accounting method.

Noting the data withholding and cases is not to celebrate the pending cases, but to wonder why in the heck they aren't giving up the goods. It must be very significant to put the reorganization at risk. Personally, I don't believe the judge will overrule the TCC's desire to receive full disclosure, which appears to be the only thing that will keep the case on track and shelter the LC's and other entities. I could be wrong, of course. I think how she rules would depend on what the information is, how relevant she believes it to be in assessing the assets and whether the LC's have some legal right to withhold it.

I am unsure what the Debtors and LC's are withholding in a death grip, but time is running out to turn it over to the TCC. Whatever it is/they are, the TCC is not playing. Fact.

There are approximately 860 cases pending in which at least one LC is a named defendant. These are locked and loaded if the Chapter 11 protective stay is not extended.

You're an excellent, insightful and compelling writer. Perhaps you can spearhead the effort. Just a thought. Not many groups have someone with your capabilities.

This is where the attorneys come in and say, "No can do." Too many ways that can go south. Quickly. There are two specific examples illustrating the degree to which the internal message has been and is being managed. Check out the Mosby and Turley statements last year. Not once is the word "sexual" used. Lots of references to "victims," "abuse" and "harm," but no mention of the type, source or nature.

I worked in Washington, DC on two separate gigs. One, for a Member of Congress and the other many years later as Exec. Director of a Policy office. I believe this is precisely on point. The element I see missing is the critical secret weapon in these situations: surrogates. When an individual is in a difficult situation and cannot afford to have anyone officially affiliated with them speak in their defense, they release the carefully chosen surrogates. If well selected, their ability to offer commentary and support is a key leveraging strategy to influence public opinion and bolster the position of the principal. I've wondered where the power players are who are deeply involved with and still love Scouting. In this critical moment, crickets...

You are obviously very intelligent, highly invested, extremely articulate, a problem solver and angry. I'm curious, what is the most frustrating: (1) the inability to control the process and thereby solve the riddle; or (2) the prospect of losing Scouting? (And yes, I am now wearing my therapist hat as well as the wingtips.)

On nearly my first day in practice, the partner who mentored me gave me a cardinal rule: "Say little. Write less. As to your clients, they refer all inquiries to you."

I was a candidate for the TCC. When I interviewed with the US Trustee & Co., I told them I did not wish for the demise of the Scouts. He said, "That sentiment is pretty much universal among all the men we are interviewing." I thought you might find that interesting, though clients seldom drive cases of this type, which loops back to the motives and goals of certain attorneys.

That is accurate. For what's it worth, I am 60. My Scout Master/abuser is ten years older than I am. In 1971, he traveled across our town to a troop in need of a leader and got the job. He was 20. If I was visiting my mother, I could knock on his door, he'd welcome me and offer me a beer. He always did. Well, unless of course, he's finally quaking in his boots. Unknown to him, I started my effort to prosecute him - with no intent or effort to pursue civil action against anyone - 20 years ago.

It had nothing to do with trying to convince you, a den mother, a Scout or anyone else. I don't believe that's what I've been doing or attempted to do here. I wanted to offer a respectful and thoughtful response from my experience. You raised great points in both posts and I wanted to ponder and engage the various elements. I believe you meant it to read well on my end, but I can't say it did. Rather harsh, but I am the outlier here and, at times, that is clear. I was aware of when I started to post and take it for what it is. Happy to take my ball and jax and leave the playground.

All good points and I do understand. I try not to be unreasonable or irrational, driven only by my situation and experience. It would take me a good bit to adequately and substantively reply to such an excellent articulation. It deserves a full, thoughtful and proper answer. I'll see if I can do that offline and loop back.

I understand from following the forum that many here do not support SOL reform for child sexual abuse. That said, the most active and influential organization working toward these changes is CHILD USA. You will find most information at their site and via their organization. The founder and principal force is law professor Marci Hamilton. https://childusa.org/

As with the LC's and SO's, insurers know that some/many of those otherwise time-barred claims derived from states where Victims Rights Act legislation is pending. 18 states have a pending VRA that creates a lookback 'revival' window. Also, insurers value certainty and clarity of liability. Both factors add some motivation and incentive to come to the table. I have other thoughts, but that may take me beyond what I am willing to share publicly.

Yes, it is quite possible that the Plan, as initially proposed, is widely disfavored. Then, it will get pushed and pulled. That's what I'm anticipating and I think they will be filing it sooner rather than well into March. The judge will be loathe to cramdown in this case.

Most of the large firms and consortiums are getting 40% in this matter. As a retired attorney and claimant in this case, I find it ghastly. Also, this Chapter 11 cannot be compared to mustering and advancing complex civil litigation or a significant tort case, class action or otherwise. There is considerably less lawyering to be done. Where is the long process of drafting complaints and early motions then discovery - interrogatories, document requests, depositions, witness gathering, trial prep and, etc.? It's almost non-existent. The 'complaint' was a 12-page check the box with additional lines for brief narrative. It's telling that a fair number of survivors completed the Proof of Claim without counsel. It wasn't needed. Very unique, as well, is the existence of an plaintiffs/claimants advocacy group, here the TCC. For the most part, they arguably represent the best interest of all claimants and carry the water. The majority of attorneys and firms don't have to do anything to advance the process. Admittedly, the other mediation parties are working hard and investing a great deal of time and resources. The TCC could be considered the 'lead plaintiff' as in a class action, but they get no additional consideration or award for their efforts. Plus, there are 9 of them and the Debtor/defendant pays their legal fees. Okay. I'll stop. Maybe that helps.

Any Reorganization Plan that excludes all of the state SOL time-barred claims will not pass and the BSA will move to liquidate. No one other than TK, et al., wants that. In my assessment, after the discovery to whatever degree it is allowed, the legitimate sexual abuse survivor claimants, including the 54,400 you note, will have a vote. Let's see if the soon to be released Plan makes any note of how the otherwise time-barred claims will be classified or treated. As an abuse survivor claimant, I don't believe all 54,400 of those claims were vetted and legitimate. That is partly gut and sniff test, partly an attorney's assessment after reviewing as many of the filings as I've had time to review. There are just too many 'fast and loose' tactics were involved in mining these claims, not the least of which is having a single attorney sign hundreds of claims in rapid succession on a single day or series of days. I truly hope Judge Silverstein slaps them down for it, as she warned she would. Anyway... The BSA made it loud and clear and public that they were gathering all current, pending and potential claims into the Chapter 11, without caveat or condition. Set aside the SOL element, since this is not a state court litigation, and read what they said. Any effort to discard all of these claims, if otherwise sound and vetted, will be a complete and utter PR disaster. I will be part of the effort to make that a reality, if they try it. Roger Mosbey: The BSA...has filed...Chapter 11...to achieve two key objectives: equitably compensate victims who were harmed during their time in Scouting...[the BSA] intends to use the Chapter 11 process to create a Victims Compensation Trust that would provide compensation to victims...the proposed Trust structure will provide equitable compensation to all victims..." Jim Turley: "We believe that all victims should receive our support and compensation...the BSA has initiated restructuring to ensure we can equitably compensate all victims of past abuse in Scouting...come forward and file claims so you can receive compensation from this Trust...we believe you and we believe in compensating you." This is not a matter of an easy line item deletion, by any means.

Is there a way to get full access to the article? It is locked, being a member subscription service. Thank you.

I suppose that’s little consolation for you guys. However, state (plaintiffs’) attorneys, National, LC’s, CO’s, and their respective insurance companies are pushing for exclusion of all claims from states that have not enacted Statute of Limitations reform. That would knock out a huge number of abuse victims. In all candor, which I strive to maintain, as one of them I can’t say that is my hoped for outcome. I’m sorry, but it will be very hard to have gone through this and have others with less onerous experiences be the only ones to receive any recompense. Brutally, brutally difficult.