ThenNow

Someone is violating Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction.

Where are you seeing the "listings" and in which state is your Council?

Brother, I agree it belongs on every thread. I was just giving you (and all) a heads up we were about to experience an unwitting shift in our time/space continuum.

Yup. I still get it. Issue being, the law calls it negligence - I think rightly for various reasons - so, it is negligence under the law and actionable. Acknowledged and appreciated.

I am certain a thread was started to address YP as a standalone topic. It launched following the announcement of a Strategic Working Group by BSA and certain of the Coalition’s survivor clients. I would love to engage this topic, but don’t want to get ponged, deleted or painted with another Scarlet letter. Call me when it shifts to the other locale. Danke sehr.

Nope. No toggling. All of a piece. Ynot and I are talking about capitalizing on the occasion of filing for Chapter 11 as the perfect opportunity to be transformationally proactive during a dark hour. Woven into this non-toggling tapestry are various threads, including: 1) organizational assessment and reform, including 360 reviews of the C-suit and paid professionals; 2) CSA claims resolution; 3) YP enhancements; 4) clarification of CO roles and responsibilities; 5) independent harm and incident data auditing and disclosures; 6) ongoing harm data transparency, which includes CSA and YP violations; and 7) consultant’s assessment of BSA at all levels, including leadership development, deployment of programming, and size and makeup of national boards.

I do see your point. It’s a fair one to make in this discussion. That’s not a statement of exoneration, just a recognition this is more complex than first meets the eye.

I don’t disagree on the numbers and have said as much. However, I think the precise meaning and application of what Ynot and I are saying are missed in this reply. It is a bankruptcy-centric, we could’ve easily “equitably compensated all survivors of abuse in Scouting” argument. (Note BSA, LCs, COs and insurers would not have been willing to put in the funds now being discussed for 1/10th the number of claims. It’s worth noting.) Your response says nothing of organizational transformation, which is what the two of us are talking about here. I could edit the announcement made on Feb. 18, 2020 and show you what I mean, but that may be too much. Perhaps Ynot will jump in and save me the trouble. Lower numbers would make the Chapter 11 easier. Maybe so, but please see my parenthetical. A simpler path would have had no impact on the internal go-forward functioning of the organization, efforts to ‘perfect’ the approach to protecting youth, or optimizing delivery of what the program has to offer. Many of these things I learned from you guys or was spurred to study after hearing your experiences.

Does that mean I'm right? (Please say, "YES.")

Forget all the practical, bankruptcy, child protection and economic benefits. This was a ginormous missed opportunity for the PR campaign of a lifetime. Own it, get out in front of it, and manage the terms and playing field by demonstrating modern era business savvy and resource utilization, a definitive moral compass and good old fashioned common sense. Absolutely mind boggling to me. Am I right or am I right, yet again?

Agreed. Your last sentence is an ongoing puzzlement to me, even after many of you have told me about the insular nature of the organization and the "inbred" model for leadership development. How can an organization watch the mounting lawsuits implicate leadership, the manner in which Scouting has been delivered through the outing model and the structure of the organization and not hire an organizational and transformational consulting group? Further, why didn't they do that when the bankruptcy was being planned in 2019? I do not understand that passivity from an organization with so much to offer, gain and lose.

In 2008, I wrote a letter to the Local Counsel SE (in my current location) and BSA's head dude at the time, Bob Mazzuca. I revealed the occurrence of the abuse I suffered and named my SM as my abuser. Crickets. Never heard a peep. Even before I completed and filed my Proof of Claim, I called BSA and managed to work my way to the person in charge of logging alleged abusers. I asked if they had received my letter. "No. We have no record." I asked if my SM/abuser was on their list. "No. We have no record." I worked my way to another person in legal and asked the same with the identical answer. I asked if they would MAKE SURE HE IS ON THE LIST immediately. "Yes. We will put him on the list." I am aware of younger Scouts who were abused by him and some are claimants in this case. I don't know if any were post 2008, but some are live claims within the SoL. It's possible their abuse happened after my letter was sent. Post Script - For all who want to better understand this issue of recycling of abusers -negligent, complicit or whatever - PLEASE read the full LA Times article I posted above. Thanks for your support. (Nod to Bartles & James.)

A sample excerpt from one of many LA Times articles. (8.4.2012) A Los Angeles Times review of more than 1,200 files dating from 1970 to 1991 found more than 125 cases across the country in which men allegedly continued to molest Scouts after the organization was first presented with detailed allegations of abusive behavior. In at least 50 cases, the Boy Scouts expelled suspected abusers, only to discover later that they had reentered the program and were accused of molesting again. One scoutmaster was expelled in 1970 for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in Indiana. Even after being convicted of the crime, he went on to join two troops in Illinois between 1971 and 1988. He later admitted to molesting more than 100 boys, was convicted of the sexual assault of a Scout in 1989 and was sentenced to 100 years in prison, according to his file and court records. In 1991, a Scout leader convicted of abusing a boy in Minnesota returned to his old troop — right after getting out of jail. “Basically, there were no controls,” said Bill Dworin, a retired Los Angeles police expert on child sexual abuse who reviewed hundreds of the files as a witness for an Oregon man abused by his troop leader in the 1980s. In 2010, the plaintiff, Kerry Lewis, won a nearly $20-million jury verdict against the Scouts. https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-boyscouts-20120805-m-story.html

I'm thinking' this will be a hard answer to tease out. While Skeptic is here Muttsy shall be mum. There is an unfortunate circumstantial muting of Muttsy's megaphone. I recommend mediation. Mr. Kevin Carey happens to be available.

Of course. I'm much better live and I get to have a tip jar. (I once asked my Gramps for a tip after holding open the door for him. His reply? "Don't stand up in a canoe." True story.)

Again, refer to my answer about litigation attorneys wanting to paint defendants in a bad light. That goes double for a plaintiff's attorney in tort cases (and twice on Sundays). I may have been obtuse and/or unclear again, but I was specifically referring to the Catholic Church. I think it flows from my stream of written consciousness, but maybe not. Anywho, that's what I was attempting to say in distinguishing them from BSA. I'm not aware of a historical a pattern of BSA knowingly and intentionally transferring alleged abusers from one place to another. Might it have been done negligently in more than a few cases? From what I've read in other cases, it happened way too many times. There are some guys on here who's abuse was because their abuser was able to move from one place to another with relative impunity.

I might step in it when I assume, but I'll assume away. [This is where we all pause and quietly recite the old adage about "when we assume." Back to b'ness. ] I believe he's speaking about the Kosnoff/TCC letter, which allegedly interfered with voting, which has been equated to ballots. That's a fair point. Also, he quickly called out the e-ballot on lots of anecdotal evidence. That can be seen as messing with voting/ballots, in particular. However unscientific and as yet unproven, he received that evidence from his clients. Totally legit and something he was compelled to report, IMNSHO. Litigation attorneys are in the business of making defendants look bad. That's what they try to do. Period. The goal is to demonstrate that they crossed the boundaries of the law and should be incarcerated or made to pay in some way. Has he extended the bounds beyond what is reasonable, genteel and professional? Probably. Does he care? No. (See my answer above regarding being mindful of the context in which TK dwells on the swells of this case and his Bluewater.) Also remember he has been eating sour grapes since he was disallowed from being a Mediation Party. He's not at the table so he's throwing blood-filled water balloons into the negotiation room. (Wow. That's a great visual. Please don't delete this. It's a very effective metaphor. I beg you.) If we can hoist the Catholic Church from their own petard, surely it's fair in this context. Do the cases present specific differences? Of course. Has anyone called them "the biggest pedophile ring in history"? Not that I know of. Are they equally deserving, if that's the word? Sure thing. And further, they did a ton of knowing and intentional transferring and relocating of abusers, which looks a lot like a ring and cycle of providing free access to kids. Again, in fairness, the BSA entered this process prior to Purdue and other tectonic shifts. Paraphrasing Prez The Donald, "I was just taking advantage of the bankruptcy laws in this country. Not to do it would have been a stupid business decision." You don't make the laws, but it's acceptable to use them. Might the recent changes rise up and put canines to the BSA hinterland? Yup.

Same. Mr. P is super cool. He seems to be suppressing a smirk many times, as someone that intelligent may be inclined to do when dueling with lesser mortals. AND he only once made a reference to his tenure as an attorney in this arena. (On first appearance, every attorney should be allowed the fleeting opportunity to tell us how many years they’ve been slaving in the coal mines of law practice and then be prohibited to reference it thereafter.) Knowing a few other attorneys on the claimant side, I think they deserve mention. They are not bankruptcy attorneys, but great and highly ethical litigators, like the ZuckermanSpaeder firm, for example.

How do you define “best”?

We need to remember the context and circumstances here: 1) This is a man I truly believe is passionate about representing child sexual abuse survivors. I am open to being accused of wearing VR goggles while stuck in a fantasy game; 2) This is a man who retired from practicing law and was off enjoying the fruits of his labors. Boredom can be a problem in retirement; 3) This is a man who “came off his yacht” to get involved in this case for survivors and, critically, AGAINST BSA. He has dual passions and one is to annoy, needle, inflame, harass...BSA, the Coalition, the TCC, insurers and anyone else he thinks is getting in the way of survivors’ rights, as HE perceives them; 4) This is a man who made his living as a career litigator. He knows what happens when one runs afoul of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and/or the Court; 5) This is a man who has the money to pay for sanctions, if imposed. I think he would gladly pay them after he fought like hell not to while creating additional distraction, diversion and chaos. (Art of War); 6) This is a man who had already placed his shingle on the shelf in his Bluewater, so if the judge wants it he might be willing to give it up following another battle (See #5, above.); and 7) This is a man who is LOVE, LOVE, LOVIN’ playing El Pequeno Toro in the china shop of JLSS’s courtroom. Did I say, he’s “LOVI’N IT”? (Nod to Mickey D’s jingle in Jim Gaffigan’s whisper voice.) I am not blessing any of the above, but when you have little to lose you can give a lot in pursuit of your endgame. He can afford whatever might be imposed as sanctions and he already gave up his law license once. So, meh. Whatever. He’s all in and isn’t afraid of losing what he’s put on the line. My take.

Oh, no. I was on. Guy (Taylor) said just that. To add, she was very concerned about attorneys signing "100's of proofs of claims" and look where we are. She was clearly not happy and very "troubled." Blech. Btw, who should I bill for my hours upon hours upon hours of research, hearing attendance, writing, vexing and sheep counting? Who, I ask you? Good God man, is there not an adult in that house?

"Stand-down." If that doesn't just sum this up this entire drama in two little, single syllable words I don't know what does. Stand-down: "a relaxation of status of a military unit or force from an alert or operational posture."

Sorry if that article was posted already. It is regarding the Ann Taylor case, which has been discussed.

Interesting piece on third-party releases. “The beat goes on.” (Nod to S&C) Third-Party Releases Under Continued Fire in Ascena Retail Group Ruling https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3ff29bf9-15f5-44a8-8372-d79ca7921941

Many moons, hundreds of pages and thousands of posts ago someone VolScouter (?) noted that BSA worked with top experts and consultants to develop it’s program for YP over a number of years. Is anyone willing and able to post the names of those individuals and organizations? I’m very curious and grateful in advance.