johnsch322

Let me first thank you for posting the link but I think That your "NOT TRUE" is quite false. He gave dissolution as a possible scenario but wasn't adamant about it. He did say clean house but I am pretty sure he meant new leadership. After listening to the interview I actually have more respect for him. It totally reinforces my view that he is not in this for the money (though everyone likes to be paid) but instead is looking out for the survivors and for future youth.

That is a lot of hyperbole. I haven't seen any burning to the ground or salting the earth before the courts. You may see me dance though if I receive a fair and equitable settlement. Protecting kids or the lack of protection is why BSA is in the mess that it finds itself in. If some how BSA went into Chapter 7 you personally believe in the Scouting life and then I think you should say to 12 year old Johnny or the 15 year old life Scout that the dissolution of the BSA is not the end of the world and pales in comparison what happened to 13 year old John. You can always try to resurrect Scouting and it doesn't have to have the name BSA. I hope you get my point because if BSA does go Chapter 7 (and I personally don't think it will) those boys will need you.

I couldn't disagree more. I believe he cares more about survivors than he does in the institution known as the BSA. He will leave the salvaging of BSA to those who believe it can be salvaged.

You are right. If I had used 1 in 6 or 100 per abuser the doubting Thomas’s would have had a field day. I wanted to show that even using watered down stats that the 82,500 number was a number way to low.

The answer to this question is within what you wrote "BSA was trying to do something when the rest of society was ineffective and doing little." What BSA was doing was ineffective (unless maybe you count the last 10 or 15 years). If it was effective there would be less claimants/victims. Also there would be no bankruptcy if there was minimal amounts of abuse. The small numbers that BSA believed they had drove them into thinking bankruptcy and then the volume came forward.

If a roller skating teacher bragged of having having 100's of victims what would make an abuser in the BSA any different? Larry Nasser in gymnastics had 100's. I am not saying that all of them had hundreds and I acknowledge that some had maybe 1. One of my abusers had at least 11 according to the IVF and nobody asked me if I had been abused. I would find it hard to believe my case is an anomaly.

On my Traegar!!

To have only 82000 victims the stat would have to be 1 in 1400 which would be a fairytale 7000 known abusers with 25 victims is 175,000 with 50 is 350,000 which is a nightmare. So what would the stat for how many were caught vs got away with it? Lets say 1 in 4 were caught that would be between 700,000 to 1.4 million a bigger nightmare.

lets try 1 in 100 and then maybe 1 in 300 At 1 in 100 115 M scouts =1,150,000 victims At 1 in 200 115 M scouts = 575,000 victims At 1 in 300 115 M scouts = 383,333 victims Wow

The abuse happened in the late 60's and neither had relatives in the troop.

The IVF was reactive and not proactive. Maybe slightly better than nothing but looking at what happened thru that period of time it was ineffective to keep the abusers at bay.

That is better. I went and looked at the form. Do you know when it was first written on an application like that? That form was from 2018 I think. More than one message isn't getting thru.

When was this study done? Because there was 82,000 claims does not mean that is all who were abused.

But a disclosure in a handbook would be after the fact of signing up. How about a disclosure when signing up that had to be signed by the parent? And one every year after?

So how did at least 2 abusers get into my troop? How was one of them able to go to another state and allowed to apply and only when his name found was his application denied? Only god knows what the second person was able to continue doing. I think that the imperators in your reply is “expected”. Judging by the size of the perversion files this was not routinely carried out.

30, 40, 50 plus years ago they weren't just allowed to slip in because the door was open wide for the abusers. The BSA had no safeguards in place for prevention period. Anyone could be a volunteer unless the name you were using was in the files and you hadn't changed your name from your previous time when you had been caught.

First I want you to know that as a survivor I feel your pain. If you look at my posts you will know most of what I have personally gone thru in my journey. Most of us will welcome your comments and hope that you find some peace by being able to post your feelings and your thoughts, I know that this forum has done that for me. We are an eclectic group of individuals who post here with many varied views not all of whom I personally agree with. I am also quick to voice my opinion when I don't agree so feel free to give your alternate opinion when you have the urge.

And me also!! Unless he was just being polite LOL!!

As I have said previously he seems to be the most interesting character in the circus. He would definitely be someone who I would like to have a conversation with.

Kosnoff Law @SexAbuseAttys · 11h Dear hens in the Henhouse. http://Scouter.com I love you, well, at least some of you. You are the most intelligent, acerbic commentators on the BSA and the bankruptcy. Following your exchanges is incredibly edifying. Sadly, many of you don’t understand me. Listen to me here: I wonder who he doesn't like?

Therein lies a dilemma and I will use my own legal representation as an example. They have offices in the following states AZ, CA, CO, HI, IL, MN, NJ, NY, and PA. My understanding is that they represent 1600 claimants. I would say that it would be reasonable to assume that they have claimants in all of those states. On who's behalf would they file a brief for or against time barred being able to vote? I think brief is the correct term? @ThenNow?

Personally I am OK with letting all time barred claimants to vote (and I reside in and my abuse occurred in California). I am also OK with time barred claims getting full shares from the settlement fund. Their pain and suffering is just as great as my own and if we are thinking fair and equitable how could one think any different. I can see the argument from the other side but I do not see the morality in it.

And that is why if I am not mistaken that the disclosure statement was set up with a process to weed out the false and invalid claims. I would also like to believe that the TCC is OK with that process. The only real valid reason I could see to push for this vetting process at this time is to delay the entire process. The cost of vetting claims now would negate the savings later. Only the insurers win if delayed.

I just wanted to reiterate that for you.

Time barred is not fraud or false. the only reason to investigate the claims would be to delay the process. I am sure that the cost of setting standards (legal wrangling means more BSA spends on legal fees) would cost millions and than fighting every motion put forward by the insurance company's (more wrangling and more fees) counter motions by every lawyer who feels there clients claim was deemed fraudulent (more wrangling and more fees) etc. etc. Then you have the actual time that all this would take and bingo insurance company's win again. Not counting the mental anguish to all other claimants. I read over the investigators report and I very much doubt that the fact you may have a burglary or assault conviction on your file means that it is a false claim. I might add that having a social media presence where you appear to have a happy married life very much does not indicate what really happens in ones real life.