County Commissioner Sues Bsa

[Gone]

A bit late, don't you think? Couldn't file suit last year? Ten years ago?

 

I sympathize with the situation but suspicious of the timing.

http://www.startribune.com/ramsey-county-commissioner-sues-boy-scouts-for-alleged-sex-abuse/309320151/

[eagle77]

 Well the SM died last year so he is not here now to defend himself or deny the accusations.

[packsaddle]

I locked the duplicate thread to prevent confusion. With your permission, Bad Wolf, I'll delete it.

 

Edit: Now that I have read the article, are you sure this is a program thread, rather than I&P?

Edited June 23, 2015 by packsaddle

[Gone]

I locked the duplicate thread to prevent confusion. With your permission, Bad Wolf, I'll delete it.

 

Edit: Now that I have read the article, are you sure this is a program thread, rather than I&P?

 

Thanks. I don't know how it double-posted. I hit enter once and haven't had issues with the new sw. Please delete. Thanks.

 

Not sure where it goes. He's suing BSA so I guess that's I&P.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[NJCubScouter]

A bit late, don't you think? Couldn't file suit last year? Ten years ago?

 

I sympathize with the situation but suspicious of the timing.

 

http://www.startribune.com/ramsey-county-commissioner-sues-boy-scouts-for-alleged-sex-abuse/309320151/

Apparently in 2013 the Minnesota legislature changed the statute of limitations for lawsuits for sexual abuse against children, "re-opening" the window for lawsuits where the statute of limitations had already expired. (I didn't know about this before, I looked it up after seeing this thread.) They gave the alleged victims a three-year period (ends March 2016 as BadWolf's link says) in which to file lawsuits. This article explains the law and the reasoning behind it in a lot more detail: http://www.startribune.com/abuse-law-unleashes-firestorm-on-church/260547781/

 

So whatever one may think about it, the legislature of Minnesota (and several other states that have done the same thing) specifically intended to permit lawsuits based on events that happened a long time ago, as long as the person sues within the three-year window.

[Gone]

I get the statute. I don't get someone not saying anything given all the time that they had.

 

As for this guy I don't get waiting two years after the statute change to file. Case prep maybe?

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[qwazse]

I get the statute. I don't get someone not saying anything given all the time that they had.

As for this guy I don't get waiting two years after the statute change to file. Case prep maybe?

I suspect many folks wouldn't come forward if it wouldn't make a difference. Many did come forward to their significant others ... but to go beyond that and risk public ridicule without a chance of vindication ... most victims draw the line well before that.

I can imagine a case of this nature would take months to prep.

 

What I wonder: what other groups face litigation under this statute.

[chrisking0997]

I get the statute. I don't get someone not saying anything given all the time that they had.

 

As for this guy I don't get waiting two years after the statute change to file. Case prep maybe?

the cynic in me agrees with your suspiscion of the timing.  I can understand the law's intent of getting justice for victims...just not sure how justice can be served in a case where no complaint was made, no record of the incident was made and the perpetrator is dead.  Moreso, Id imagine most of the leadership of that council and even BSA from 40 years ago are either dead or close to it.  Its generally agreed that BSA had its issues with this subject during the time in question, but theyve made great strides in working to eradicate abuse from the organization.  Other than money, Im just stumped at what the expectation of justice is in this case.  Im extremely sympathetic, but not sure what this will accomplish

[NJCubScouter]

Other than money, Im just stumped at what the expectation of justice is in this case.

I have to chuckle at that a little bit. To a lot of people, money is all the justice they really need. And even if you're not like that, sometimes money is all the justice that's available.

[BDPT00]

He's in a political position, and his move might (just might) have something to do with that.  He claims that he's doing for others, and he looks pretty sincere when he says it.  Not sure at all about the motivation.

[skeptic]

What does not appear to be clear is if this was actually ever brought to the council's attention way back then.  And, as noted, very convenient that the alleged abuser died prior to the claim.  Was this dredged up by a lawyer from the "files"?

[NJCubScouter]

Was this dredged up by a lawyer from the "files"?

I was wondering the same thing. Assuming the links from when those first came out still work, someone could actually look and try to match up the years and location and descriptions and see if anything seems to fit. That someone will not, however, be me.

 

I say the following not just to skeptic, but also to Bad Wolf and anybody else who has said that this looks "suspicious" or "convenient" or has questioned the motivations of this person. Maybe there is some truth to what you say. But if the law provides you with an opportunity to get some compensation for something you claim has been done wrong to you, especially when that opportunity once expired and has now been given back, I find it difficult to fault someone for doing what the system allows them to do. This man is going to have to convince someone (whether a jury or an insurance company claims department) that these things really happened, and in the case of his claims against the BSA and the council he is going to have to convince them that National/council knew or should have known that this Scoutmaster was a threat and allowed him to be in a position of leadership anyway. (In fact, skeptic, if this Scoutmaster is NOT in "the files", I wonder how this guy is going to do that.) So it isn't like you sue the BSA and someone cuts you a check. I can also say (not from personal experience, but from close-observation experience) that being a plaintiff in this kind of case is no picnic, because on the other side are several people whose job it is to avoid paying you anything, or failing that, to get you to settle for as little as possible. (Not just this kind of case, but this kind of case presents more opportunities for making the plaintiff's life miserable as a settlement tactic.)

Edited June 24, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[Gone]

@@NJCubScouter I don't think anyone I've read is faulting the guy for coming forward. However why after the abuser died? Wouldn't he get more closure facing him? Why wait a few years after the statute is in effect? Ok, maybe it took that long to get the case together, but it looks suspicious. Also, why not come forward earlier after the attack? Again, the victim might have had problems coming to terms with the issue and the statute of limitations passed when he finally did.

 

It's not the motives for coming forward folks are questioning, it's the timing.

[CalicoPenn]

Why not come forward after the attack?  Because a lot of victims of sexual molestation - especially boys - do not want to talk about it with anyone - and that was especially true in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.  Boys were (and often still are) raised to believe that they are weak if they are victimized by abusers.  They fear(ed) being identified as a victim of sexual abuse, especially if their abuser was a male, because they believed (rightly, I'm sorry to say) that they will be bullied by their peers as being gay, or not believed by their own parents or the authorities.  We'd like to think that Boy Scouts would be Brave and report their abusers, but its hard to be brave when the messages you get are that you won't be supported.  Boys, especially, are known to test the waters first - they might complain to their parents about something that their abuser did (like yelling at them for something) just to find out their parent's reaction - if the parent's tell them to essentially suck it up, what do you think that boy is going to think his parent's reaction will be if he complains about molestation? 

 

It is highly likely that cases of sexual abuse of minors in the Boy Scouts of America, in the Catholic Chuch, and in other youth groups, are very underreported.  Look at this case - the former leader is in the database yet this victim is not mentioned - if one victim did not come forward, chances are pretty good that there are other victims of this former leader that did not come forward.  Look at the Hastert case - we knew of no victims because the victims did not report it to anyone - now we know of at least two - how many more might still be out there that are either still afraid to report it or have blocked it so thoroughly that they no longer ackowledge it themselves.

 

Why wait to file that claim?  As was stated, the victim had done a lot of work to block it out.  It would have taken a lot to acknowledge that it did happen and even more to finally decide to admit it publicly - as much as we think we've advanced since the 1970's in encouraging youth to report, we still have a long way to go. 

 

Why are people, especially men and boys, so reluctant to report that they were sexually abused?  Re-read this thread and check the attitudes of all the Scouters on here questioning the victim's motivation - THAT is one of the reasons men and boys don't report.  

[Gone]

 

Why are people, especially men and boys, so reluctant to report that they were sexually abused?  Re-read this thread and check the attitudes of all the Scouters on here questioning the victim's motivation - THAT is one of the reasons men and boys don't report.  

 

I see people questioning the TIMING, not the motivation.