ThenNow

He definitely is or via a surrogate. Count on it being a broad sampling of people involved or interested in the case, either personally, professionally or institutionally. Without question.

For you active Scouters, I hope this doesn’t put a damper on the candid discussion here.

Having been Executive Director of an organization with a couple $100M annual net revenue, there was a working board and an executive/advisory board. The latter was a list of people willing to be named on the stationary and included on marketing materials. Nothing more. In my involvement with other working and advisory/executive boards, the level of involvement was up to the member. Very very few advisory/executive boards did anything, except for my limited BSA LC experience. Maybe a press statement or appearance at a gala. Reticence or refusal to allow access to decisions and numbers, however, would not have been tolerated, especially by major donors on the executive board. That’s just stupid and self-defeating, in addition to bad business practice.

I don’t know the details, but am aware of this, generally. If you know some specifics, many have no clue that the TCC works hand and glove with a passel of the best, most experienced and most committed child sexual abuse attorneys on the planet. Well, that’s what been briefly stated in Town Halls. Any info to help understand this would be appreciated. Inquiring minds want to know.

If it was the Southernism, my wife is from the South. Coincidentally, kids went to school in NC, MS and Alabama x2 and one lived in Texas for four years. That’s the one who went to undergrad in MS. He says what I wrote about pretty much anything he really likes, especially food and things that go *bang*. Maybe that was it? Not sure if you’re from, have had many occasions to be in or are well acquainted with folks from the South, but it’s a common phrase. Dunno.

Sorry. I’m not sure what I wrote that wasn’t. No clue. Nothing intended. Please message me otherwise I may step in it again…

Same. I decided fairly early on, as in third grade at the latest, I wanted be a priest or an attorney. There’s logic behind that, but I’ll spare you. Other factors influenced my thinking. I bailed on the priesthood when I went to pre-Seminary in 7th grade. I made a hasty retreat after one overly ‘playful’ group shower with a young priest, and all that appeared to indicate. I was already in Scouting with all the mess that involved. I have distant cousins, one of each side of my family, who were convicted child sexual abusers. I knew about the priest years ago. I just found the Scouter two days ago. A very unpleasant discovery as I scoured the IVF from my home state. Two things: 1) With all I know about sexual abusers and predation, from experience, treatment, therapy, I honestly believe there may have been a degree of coordination between Scouting perpetrators. There are just too many indicia throughout the files and stories I know. Methods, grooming techniques and even language associated with camping and Scouting are eerily similar; and 2) I realize the Church transferred, which is unconscionable and BSA had less than robust ability to track. However, many cases illustrate how easy it was for Scouters to go abuse boys in another city or county. There are testimonies of guys talking about how easy it was for them. Lack of adequate means to search can’t be a basis for exoneration or rationalization. I’m not saying you are, just making the point.

https://www.kcic.com/trending/feed/worried-about-century/ PS - Dated, but it has a flowchart.

Yeah. Not what I was saying. I was asking if anyone could find/run numbers on the RCC cases. Even if priests moved, so did Scouter abusers, for a good number of years. I was just trying to isolate to find a comparative number for the extrapolation. Imprecise, but I would find it interesting and possibly enlightening, regardless the outcome. I don’t presume to know how it would shake out. We had this tennis match eons ago on this forum and I did my best to make the case that Scouting is a far more broad, deep and sheltered field for child sexual abuse. Raised Catholic to the extent that the only non-Catholic education I had was undergrad and a masters in my old age. I was also extremely involved in all manner of youth activities. Add up all the element of opportunity for abuse across and those activities and the fall well short of those available in historic Scouting. Others disagree, but I’m right. Take my word. I was first abused at my first Summer Camp a couple months after I signed up. Yup. My point exactly. Still, as you say, how do we know? We also know sexual abuse within families has always been highest. Agreed. If they had asked CHILDUSA and other child advocacy organizations, they could have disabused them of that notion. Big time. Tim Kosnoff, even.

Staying with the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal comparison, not to mention USA Gymnastics and others, do they not follow the news? #metoo? Didn’t realize “this is not just about the money”? Say what?! That would be supremely boneheaded beyond compare.

Here are a few questions for the research team: 1) How many Catholic boys might one cipher were in a particular Diocese that went Chapter 11 over child sexual abuse claims; 2) Next, how many boys filed abuse claims in that case, maybe New Mexico; 3) Next, how many boys have been in Scouting since inception; 4) How many abused Scouts and abuser Scouters were identified in the released IVF; and 5) How many of each might one speculate were purged before that; and 6) How many victims does the average child sexual abuse predator have in their period of active predation? Now, someone mathy extrapolate the comparative numbers and do the calculations. I am very curious to see even some ballpark data.

Precisely: 1) Several meetings, including a two-day mediation; and 2) “it became apparent that attorneys for abuse victims believed certain Local Councils with significant abuse liabilities have significant assets that could be used to compensate victims.” They knew it was a specter, even if limited. Did they tell the open states they would need to cough up?

If I were any anywhere near the Ad Hoc Committee of LCs, I would have sent that script almost verbatim, save for fleshing out few bullet points. Honestly, I was musing about that very thing last night. Forgive me, but from a messaging and PR standpoint, not to do so is a very boneheaded thing to do (not do). It also does not help this process. By putting their feet in their mouths, as some are, it adds to our concerns about their lack of engagement, sincerity and contributions. They need to know some of us measure every word they say. I’m happy to use stuff against them when I go to the Settlement Trustee, but good grief.

Regardless, I know of no one on the victim claimant side who intended to give LCs a free pass to financial exoneration. None. That was clearly the intent. You’re saying National didn’t know that after who knows how many pre-filing talks with state attorneys? (I don’t think you are. It’s rhetorical.) I doubt it very much. Neither here nor there, at this point, but I respect and feel badly for the honest, earnest and committed Scouters who’ve had to take that dagger in the back.

If you go back and read all the post filing announcements from LCs about being untouched, unscathed and uninvolved in the Chapter 11, they are pretty revealing about how National runs this operation. I just did that and the delusion ran deep. I was told from the jump there was no chance they wouldn’t be pressed to contribute or many would be in court soon after discharge. How does that happen, I mean seriously? If some/any were successfully sued prior to filing, that’s a pretty clear indication of liability or exposure at the least.

Add Bay-Lakes to your reference list, as well, since that big reveal ended up here a couple days ago. I was also told that there is a Sept. date set at which time the entire list will be released. Any who can, please confirm, deny or slap me down.

Do you have particular names that are part of this conspiracy theory or is this just a general “they” and “them”? If you guys are going to go at it, please give me five minutes to make some popcorn. Be right back...

From what I understand, not a lot. They weren’t tapping it for anything like that amount. No cutting staff. They’re good.

See my post of Cynical’s post above. Sorry for the butchery. Cut and paste is too gracious a description for what I do.

I think there's two different confidentiality items here: 1) "We can't tell you the number" is one. THAT has been lifted but some councils are still pretending it is binding. The fact that so many councils have released their numbers proves that's a fib. 2) "We can't tell you because we are in negotiations to sell local properties" is another that may be in play. Look at the language here. In other words, the NUMBER is no longer confidential, but HOW the LC will pay may be if there's a deal being struck in the background

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have learned what my LC is contributing and I am not happy about it. I understand this is a process and it is bankruptcy, not state court. As has been said, no one is going to be “happy” at the end, unless there is a Chapter 7. Then, Tim Kosnoff has a phat yacht party with a massive fireworks display, complete with flaming effigies. Back to the point, it hurts to see and feel such a relative incongruity between the injury and the “penalty.” I know for a fact that some LCs were surprised and pleased by the number they were given and easily found the money. They were prepared to go much more deeply into their cash and assets. From a messaging perspective, that was stupid to say, but now it’s out.

Um. I think you sliced well wide of the pin. Bay-Lakes Council takes its $2.9M from it’s interest and dividend portfolio and that is that. “Spit, spot,” as Mary Poppins would say. As to their contribution, not so painful. Others are having their entire contribution paid by donors. True. Others have donors standing in the wing to replenish the fund once the case is over. True. From a victim claimant’s standpoint, and that is what we were talking about here, that doesn’t seem to match the “crime.” (No one freak out. I’m using a phrase that is relevant and applicable to some of us.) Finally, we’re talking largely about perception, remember, though there is plenty to evidence this being pretty darn easy for some. For others, very painful. I get it. For most us? We stand in the “others” line. /s/ <Half A. Clue

Back to the weird movie. That doesn't feel so good on this end of the stick. How many guys would even know to watch for an announcement from their LC? Not many. The first they'll see is the disclosure. I'm not trying to tank the process, it just goes to how wonky it is trying to resolve mass torts in Chapter 11. "One of these things, is not like the other. One of these things, just doesn't belong..."

Reference my reaction to the announcement you shared about taking a $3M slice off the stock portfolio. For me, that was irritating, regardless the number of claims or Shade of Gray. For those 155 guys and especially the 5 with live claims, that has to be painful. My thinking, anyway.

Got it. (It's still a very weird movie...)