ThenNow

Thanks for all the answers on this. I don't want to further deviate from the topic, so will leave it with this gem from another of the Forum's threads. (With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) You might be an Eagle factory if... If your troop meeting plan is based on merit badge classes then you might be an Eagle factory. If the majority of merit badge sashes in the troop look the same you might be an Eagle factory. If scouts are told which merit badge they are learning next you might be an Eagle factory. If everyone moves to the next rank at the same time you might be an Eagle factory. If you define the success of your program by the number of Eagle Scouts you might be an Eagle factory. If you think the advancement method is the most important scout method you might be an Eagle factory. If you give blue cards to scouts before they ask for one you might be an Eagle factory. If you tell scouts how many, or which, merit badges they must earn at summercamp you might be an Eagle factory. So don't worry about what others say, worry about what you are doing. If the actions above seem familiar to you in the unit you serve, then you are not following the the scouting program or giving the youth the best possible scouting experience even if they receive Eagle, and that is what is important. Bob White

...and you might need a lifetime of therapy after all that high achievement and pressure.

I appreciate the commitment to be part of compensating survivors through a global solution. As I've droned on about, I was surprised at the fractured position and voice from the Councils and BSA. Parochial is the perfect word. I know I was naive, but as a Scout I thought it was all for one, one for all. Top to bottom. Side to side. In retrospect, I mixed us up with the Mousekateers, I suppose.

Just for gee whiz, I was selecting between two schools of note. One highly valued Eagle. The other, even decades ago, quite the opposite. I had to steer around it with the second one. First was a private school, the second a state school.

From my knowledge of Scouting back when and up to today, I'm also baffled by the lack of strategic organizational, financial and risk management planning. With the number or high-level attorneys and professionals associated with the organization, what were they thinking? Also, what were they doing? This goes to YPT, too. (DavidCO - please don't get your waterboard.) This is personal and corporate tax, estate and legacy planning 101. Maybe 201. Put stuff in trust. Create holding companies. Install distance and buffer entities. Protect and sequester assets. Don't commingle. It sounds complicated, but it's not so much so that an organization like the BSA couldn't have a poop sheet to tell LCs how to do what...years ago. Just sayin'. They brought this on themselves with denial and a good deal of arrogance, imho. That relates to the asset scramble and the abuse cases. Fast and loose.

Say what? Is that for me? (I won't say anything about pithy retorts or raisin torts or animated shorts or full-bodied ports.)

This is off topic, but perhaps someone would give me a brief recap. I received my Eagle in 1975. It was not easy and there weren't many of us, or so it seemed. In the past 15+ (?) years has there been an escalation of "win the prize" orientation, driven by Units and parents? I had no particular push or encouragement from my parents, though our SM was keen to have his "first Eagle." As I said back there somewhere, it seems like it's become part of the, "Thou shalt build the college resume at all cost!" culture to me. I both understand and marginally despise it.

Precisely why the judge told them they can't do it and that she would look back to see if they had. I don't recall the detail or timeframe on the second component. I seem to recall something to that effect during the August 2020 to January 2021 scuttlebutt over the Tennessee shake-n-bake activities. This was the filing initiated it, as far as I know. Some stipulation was reached back in January. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/838822_1084.pdf Here is the Stipulation. WHEREAS, on July 30, 2020, the BSA sent an update to the Responsive Letter describing the initial results of its ongoing investigation of the Properties Trust based on its discussions with counsel for MTC regarding the Properties Trust. Among other things, BSA advised the Tort Claimants’ Committee that “MTC does not take the position that any contingent interest of BSA in MTC’s property was extinguished by the transfer of property to the Properties Trust.” WHEREAS, on August 7, 2020, the Tort Claimants’ Committee filed the Stay Enforcement Motion, which seeks entry of an order enforcing the automatic stay against MTC and voiding MTC’s transfers to the Properties Trust. WHEREAS, the Creditors’ Committee identified additional concerns beyond those specifically addressed in the Stay Enforcement Motion with respect to the transfers to the Properties Trust, the manner in which it was formed, and the execution of the Qualified Affidavit. WHEREAS, MTC asserts that the creation of the Properties Trust and transfer of assets thereto and the statements in the Qualified Affidavit were proper and in compliance with applicable law, and the Creditors’ Committee and the Tort Claimants’ Committee each disagree with this assertion. WHEREAS, in connection with certain mediated discussions between the Tort Claimants’ Committee and MTC regarding the Stay Enforcement Motion, MTC appointed the Honorable John Bryant as Trust Protector and, on November 2, 2020, the Trust Protector executed that certain Amendment to the Properties Trust (the “Amendment”), which includes, among other things, an amendment to include the following in the Properties Trust: To the extent that BSA National has an interest in the assets of the Properties Trust by way of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws referenced in paragraph F of Article II of the Trust Agreement or BSA National’s articles, bylaws and regulations, MTC and the Trust Protector, on behalf of the Properties Trust, agree that any such interest was not extinguished or otherwise impacted by the transfer of assets by MTC to the Properties Trust.” * * * To the extent that BSA National has an interest in the assets of the Properties Trust, the Properties Trust shall not been amended in a way that alters and impairs such interest. Amendment ¶¶ 1(a), (d). A copy of the Agreement as amended subsequently has been recorded with the Register of Deeds in the five Tennessee counties in which the four camps and MTC’s offices are located. The Agreement, as amended by the Amendment, and as recorded, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/869355_1948.pdf

I don't disagree at all. The process so far has been hopeful in moments and more often terrible, at least for me. Also, agree. I guess National is beyond any reach of accountability, but it's mind numbing to watch them spend money and spin the wheels on the bus. Fee requests (volume and dollar signs) from their experts and professionals far exceed those from the claimants'. I assumed the judge was chastising both parties when she gasped at the $100M nut, but it would've been more accurately directed at the BSA. They didn't expect all these claims, true, but they sure could've had their ducks in a row on assets and representation of the LCs. My take, anyway. The TCC has a very difficult task. A group of 85,000ish child sexual abuse survivors is technically and psychologically daunting. From all I've heard and read, I'm confident they are trying to move the ball and have been since the outset. Everyone I've spoken to since March of last year says there's no way LCs are getting a release without contributing. I am daily flabbergasted to hear you guys say you were and are told the opposite. Doesn't sound like the BSA is dealing in either good faith or reality.

From the claims data analysis done by the TCC, and CynicalScouter's rundown of the LCs, all have claims against them.

I can't speak to all of your thoughts as well as others certainly can. I do think you may well underestimate the reliability, clarity, corroboration, witness availability and strength inherent in a sufficient number of valid claims to crash the bus. It seems underestimation is somewhat epidemic. (Refer to he responses to the now infamous "chart.") All I can say is, give me a shot in court along with one or two of the other guys victimized by our abuser, and we'll see what's what. Won't be pretty. Team me up with all of them, by the looks of it in the 6-10 range, and it's SHOW TIME. The negligence and reckless endangerment threads are not as thin as you believe, imho. Again, I know my case well. Not so much the other 83,836.

In the midst of it all, I found this interesting. https://www.lanereport.com/139744/2021/03/nky-boy-scouts-chapter-lands-1-million-for-eagle-lodge/

FYI, if not already known. https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2021/03/kalamazoo-county-buys-former-rota-kiwan-boy-scout-camp-to-create-212-acre-nature-preserve.html

I've had a heightened awareness of all things BSA this past year. I try to note and log whatever I hear or read. I've found, purely anecdotally, that many of the most engaged and enthusiastic Scouting advocates are such families. One or both parents are involved with one or more of their children in their Scouting life. Often, all the kids are on a Scouting track. The LDS families I've known had this approach - it was "family" Scouting.

Duly noted.

Don't forget the insurance assets of the BSA and LCs, the Chartering Organizations and the insurance assets of the COs. There are multiple buckets, not just the aggregate assets of the BSA and LCs.

I am in the midst of a very elementary national survey to see what people know about the case, their thoughts, on it, whether they think the BSA should continue, if their kids are allowed to be in activities with other adults while they are not with them and several other things. I will report, if anyone would like to know the results. To your point, I was pretty surprised how many people said things like, "I know little or nothing...some leaders took advantage of some boys years ago...they had to file bankruptcy because the LDS church left" and etc. Also, 65% or so know someone who was sexually abused as a child. Not surprised, but notable. This is why I posted the chart and why I have been baffled at the ho-hum approach being taken by the LCs and COs, not to mention the BSA. They and the Ad Hoc Committee (I assume) had the data for months via a settlement demand from the TCC. I guess they weren't in a sharing mood. "Hello? Anyone serious about this?" [insert head shake and befuddled look]

Well, okay then, as they say in the northern midwest. I have no pithy retort to either of those sentences.

Again, this is me throwing question darts at a board in the dark. I ask out of ignorance and not grinding anyone's nose in something. Was it truly the assumption that these were minor "offenses" and random, though malicious acts of "touching," and etc.? I am taken aback by the reaction to the data, since we've been talking about sexual abuse. Plus, I have been blathering on about my experience. Did most assume my claim is isolated and/or anomalous?

This is certain liquidation for open state LCs, since none of the Councils will be released from liability if they don't participate. They are non-parties to the case and only get protection if they "voluntarily" contribute to the Trust. This appears to be the approach the TCC is taking, as I understand it. Is your thought to preserve LCs not subject to immediate or highly likely near-terms lawsuits, based on the status of state SoLs? As we've discussed, though not all have look-back windows, many have pending legislation that could very well lead to one. I'm just trying to understand the anticipated outcome of the $.01 suggestions.

It may be true. Based on what some of you report, I’m not sure. Many seem to be far removed from abuse or negative experiences. I suppose the issue really is can safety be replicated and, more so, ensured. If it can’t be reliably replicated, that’s quite an indictment on the human animals. No surprise. Sounds like Scouting’s philosophical and practical death knell, if the opinion is widely held among the ranks. Time to fold up the tents and liquidate, then? (Btw, having the “best lawyers” is ultimately meaningless when the Supreme Judge is on the other team.)

I’ve read this three times. I make no sense of it other than to conclude it’s a puzzle of contradictions.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here, but yes. State statutes define criminality and level of offense associated with each act, depending on age, force, injury, and, etc. All categories represent criminal acts, statutes depending. In the old days and maybe today, the last category might goes to “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” up to child pornography. Have any been prosecuted? No clue. In my case and many others, the criminal SoL had run by the time I was ready to act. Some of the claims could be prosecuted under newly revised SoL in certain states, if the survivor chooses and prosecutors are willing. As CynicalSouter has said, it’s a tough row to hoe in a criminal case after so much time has elapsed. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a high bar of proof/evidence to get a guilty verdict. Again, I can refer you to CHILDUSA and their work for details on SoL reform.

One of the reasons I posted what I did goes to this very point and, by implication, YPT. The data and reality represented is what lies on the other side of whatever effort you put into “firewalling” predators. Failure to enforce or allowing 67% completion of training leads to that chart. It’s dark, stark and ugly. It’s also very real. We survivors have felt it was not being seen for what it truly is. Now it’s unavoidable. Few things are more affirming that to be believed in the face of widespread doubt and aspersions.

I did not know about the dual membership. I assumed Scouters from “Scouter.com.” The very LAST thing I would ever want to do is cause anyone trauma over this. God forbid. I am very sorry if it occurred in any way.