SiouxRanger

Forum shopping is a discussion topic in elementary civil procedure in law schools. Not promoting or discouraging it, explaining what it is.

I have to agree. A predator decides to prey, and then engages in behavior to accomplish that goal targeting victim(s). I am not sure the word "grooming" fully connotes the insidious nature of the process/goal. It sounds too benign to me. Maybe a new word is needed. But clearly, a predator sets a course toward abuse, and then grooms. (Perhaps another element of YPT training-grooming techniques to be aware of-perhaps becoming alert to pre-abuse activities will prevent actual abuse.)

Why is this called the "Churchill" Project? Does anyone know?

At one time, and perhaps to this day, the BSA publication, "Standards Of Membership And Leadership" was a publication restricted to distribution to professional (senior?) staff only. So, I ask, why would that be? And, does anyone have a copy they can post? (And, perhaps the provisions in that publication bear on the issue of BSA's alleged negligence in dealing with sex abuse claims.)

I had originally typed" impracticable and impossible," but that seemed wordy, so I dropped impracticable. Impracticable would have been the better choice. As camp buildings are scattered and accessed at all hours of the day or night, and a sweep is only good for the moment it is done, I was envisioning a Morning sweep, noon sweep, an after dinner sweep, and a lights out sweep. And that's convenient. I always wear a metal detector, so I will see you coming. (And thanks for the info. Probably not all hidden cameras emit RF if not broadcasting images in real time but merely storing data on a chip for later retrieval. Can THEY be detected?)

Well, yes, in a fashion. The books keep keeping getting smaller, length and width, but thicker. The print shrinks and getting hard to read.

I think with the cameras situation, it is another item to add to the list of items to be aware of. Electronic sweeping and such are virtually impossible to do effectively at a price anyone is willing to pay. I'll never look at a towel dispenser the same ever again. And, I'll do a quick look around in restrooms and showers. I don't know anything about the technology, but a rudimentary course is going to be necessary. It is sad the damage that a few bad actors do. My guess is that packages over 13 ounces have to be mailed at the Post Office, if not metering the postage, courtesy of the Unabomber. And the TSA... Eternal vigilance...

And what, we shun the apostates? Good luck.

Does anyone have any insight into the likely method and manner of a claimant's "testimony" in the claim evaluation process? A more detailed questionnaire than the proof of claim questionnaire, a narrative description (that is, a letter), phone interview, zoom (or equivalent) interview, or open administrative hearing with testimony in person? I am assuming that claimants will not be providing "testimony" of any sort in the bankruptcy proceeding proper but only as part of the settlement fund claim evaluation process. Perhaps I am wrong. Last I checked, Perry Mason is defunct, and with 85,000 claims, I cannot see a day's hearing on each claim-that's 232 years if only one hearing officer. Even with 100 hearing officers, that 2.32 years, even if working weekends. Unmanageable and incredibly expensive. I would anticipate a much more perfunctory evaluation due to the sheer volume of claims. To the abuse survivors, this is understandably a big issue.

Lawyers really do not like their clients, standing in opposition to one another, discussing the issues of a pending case without legal counsel present. Too much chance of making an admission against interest, or agreeing to a concession without an adequate concession by the other side, or simply mucking up the case by all manner of ambiguous or vague statements or "agreements" that come back to haunt them. Even in the presence of agreements that the discussions are non-admissible, there remains the chance of disclosing strategies or the measure of one's will to contest the case (the point at which a party will simply give up, or make big concessions).

Curious. I do not understand the significance of this. Do we know if those meeting at the PTC are non-lawyer representatives of CO's, or legal representatives of the CO's? And, are National representatives also meeting with those CO representatives?

Thanks, ThenNow. I think you are very realistic. I, too, hope for the things you do.

The final result of National' bankruptcy. Just wondering what survivors would consider a "good result." (Considering the inherent infirmity of the legal system to undo the damage that has been done.) I'm not looking for a dollar amount-that will be whatever it ends up being.

"Gravity" is a natural law. Expound heartily to the contrary, yet the "Apple still falls." Stephen J. Gould. I absolutely and thoroughly reject your analysis. Good luck with Scouting.

Perhaps I misjudge, are you advocating going to war with snot-nosed cub scouts and their moms? In my Troop I satisfy myself that the scouts have their shirts tucked in.

So, some clarification seems to be needed (and particularly to confused mrjohns2). I heard somewhere, many years ago, that Boy Scouting was the only youth program that gave awards to adults. (I do not know if this is true or not, but it is irrelevant to this discussion.) (But that comment does target BSA as having an adult "advancement" element. Beginning to sound like a Mary Kay meeting.) It got me thinking, should I be accepting awards only for those for which I was competing (or competitively awarded), or also awards bestowed by a group for whatever reason suited it? "Do a Good Turn Daily," "Cheerful Service.," and such, I take those to heart. I know several scouters who wore as many as 27 knots, each trying to out-compete the other. And I ask, "Where is the benefit to youth if knots are earned for the purposes of a peacock's display?" As a "self-starter" I need no encouragement, support, pats-on-the-back, and such, to work diligently and tirelessly to advance my Scouting tasks. Nobody need tell me if I "did well." I know my shortcomings far too well enough. So, I resolved only to accept awards which were competitively awarded-mostly. I did accept the District Award of Merit, and many years later, Silver Beaver. But I wear only my Eagle knot. And now that I contemplate the Eagle Scouts that have awarded me a Mentor Pin, I need to wear at least one (each can think it is their pin, however brothers awarded me each's pin at a recent Eagle Court of Honor, so now I shall wear two). Those that know me, know what I have contributed and those that don't-it matters not. I am pretty reserved. It is not about me.

The Eagle Mentor pins I have received, I received at Eagle Courts of Honor. As a good scouter and troop leader I wear my uniform to Eagle Courts of Honor. I am to stand as an adult example. The Mentor pins have been pinned on my uniform. Perhaps I should pause the proceedings, change into a suit coat, receive a Mentor Pin, re-pause the proceeding to change into... Seriously? Does that not denigrate the significance and value of the uniform??? If the uniform is acceptable to accept the awarding of a Mentor Pin it should be suitable for wearing it there ever after. I wear my uniform to troop meetings-I could hardly imagine the reaction of a scout who recently awarded me their Mentor pin-many times to the exclusion of their own Father-who does not see me wearing his pin. What do they think of me and what do they think I think of them? I did not get into Scouting adult leadership to disappoint children.

I forward emails from a scout to a parent and let them know I require parents to be copied on any email to me. (SM or other troop leader will do too, but parent is best.)

A word about court and law firm mechanics. All I'll say is that Federal court deadlines, filing dates, and turn-around dates are much shorter than state courts. What would be 30-60-90 days in state court can be only a week or less in Federal Court. Cases in Federal court typically involve huge sums and the firms involved devote a dozen or more partners and associates to document drafting and revisions, but that the RSA 2.0 appeared within 24 hours of RSA 1.0's imminent expiration is impressive. It may have been in the drafting stage for some time, perhaps even being negotiated and revised as the parties were debating RSA 1.0 before the Judge. "We win on RSA 1.0-trash RSA 2.0." "Lose on RSA 1.0-Presto! Voila! RSA 2.0." That drafts of the almost certain many versions of RSA 2.0 had to routed past attorneys for all the parties, and approved, or changes made, and THOSE changes then re-routed around. A formidable accomplishment.

The Judge could be evaluating her options between civil and criminal, direct and indirect contempt of court. Perhaps that attorney will manage this case to conclusion from a jail cell.

For some strange reason, the BSA continues to enjoy a high level of deference. (Maybe it will all work out OK.) My best guess. (OK in the sense of "good news to report" as measured by the media. I doubt that any resolution will be seen as good news by the survivors.) However, on that note, would any survivor care to express their hopes for this procedure?

Given what is on the table tomorrow before the Judge, a lot will be learned about the likely course of this proceeding.

The course of a lawsuit can change on a dime and head off in virtually any direction. The hearing yesterday, the Judge completely changed her mind upon learning of the looming expiration of the RSA. Curiously, but understandably, for the reason that she was not about to put the smaller parties through expensive pre-motion preparation if there was the possibility that the hearing was not to be held at all. Sensitive and cost conscious. Back to changing on a dime...clients change their minds. There are many reasons to numerous to launch into, but a huge trial can devolve into the preparation of a settlement agreement on the last terms offered. Or explode into a hotly contested matter when all seemed calm. It only takes a change of mind; mind changing is not subject to the laws of physics. Another significant game changer is a court ruling. One can entirely change the course of litigation. Litigation is the fastest game in town, bar none, the markets, politics...none.

I don't think that a facilities use agreement is likely to fully protect the former CO, now landlord. The former CO's should insist on the Council indemnifying the former CO from all losses and attorney's fees, and providing proof of insurance coverage. Standard stuff in the legal world. In the past, this was of little concern as the CO's did not know of the silent avalanche of claims building and roaring down upon them. In its own way the silence of BSA toward the CO's is financial abuse. The CO's wracking up year after year of sponsorship (liability exposure) blissfully ignorant of BSA's knowledge of a huge financial threat. Reassured by BSA's lack of panic.

If I were a CO even with a facilities use agreement I'd still insist that my employee be present in three deep leadership concerned that some crafty/artful lawyer would seek to impose liability through some theory or nuance of premises liability. If you do NOTHING, you are almost certainly not a defendant. If you do anything, perhaps ever so slight as provide a key to the front door, you are a target. The risk is not zero.