Chapter 11 announced

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Another question that has come to mind is are these "lawyers" investigating cases where the actual perpetrator is known?  If so, did they go beyond their participation in BSA?

So what? I'm not sure I understand. Are you arguing that if an Assistant Scoutmaster was molesting Scouts, the fact that the same person may have been molesting kids at the YMCA makes it OK? Remember, the attorney is hired by a particular client (John Scout). That the ASM was molesting James YMCA-Person does NOT mean the attorney has to serve as that person's attorney, too.

10 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Finally, it is odd, at least to me, that there are claims that are saying they do not remember who, or what unit, or where they met, and so on.  IF it traumatized them from that long ago period, you would think they might remember some of the details, and not just that some "ambulance chasing legal group" suggests that they may make a vague claim with little or no need for documentation.  Not suggesting there is no validity to some of the claimants, only that the openly vague option is just that, open and vague.

And that's the point behind discovery. There's this notion that all you have to do is file a claim and BSA is going to be forced to pay. That's not the deal, at all. The idea is that post-November 16 the claims will be assessed individually.

I've already gotten word from my council that only about 20-30% of claims are "with specificity" (meaning that they can at least identify the legal minimum to assert a claim). There's still going to be a review period here folks.

10 minutes ago, skeptic said:

But what would I know.  I keep thinking that we should maybe look beyond the accusation and require at least a modicum of validation.  And I also feel that the comparative stats related to other groups should be in play as far as the claims that nothing was done.  We have already noted that nobody else kept records, or at least none of which we are aware.  That in itself is more effort to root the worst out, than most.  

First, it is going to require a modicum of validation. I really, really don't know where people get the idea that any male over the age of 30 is going to be able to assert a claim and get money automatically.

As for comparative stats for other organizations, so what? The court's not going to look at "Well, the BSA had pedophiles, but nowhere NEAR as many as the YMCA, therefore the BSA gets to walk on this." The fact that other organizations had 100% pedophiles or 0% pedophiles does nothing regarding whether:

1) a particular person

2) has a particular claim

3) against a particular Council and/or National

4) for a particular amount

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[yknot]

I feel that to some degree we are discussing things that are wishful thinking and not reality. Yes, it would be helpful if some higher power swooped in and absolved BSA of responsibility for questionable or unprovable claims from 60 years ago.  However, in the current environment where we literally have states and some national voices considering how to assess reparations for events that happened 200 to 400 years ago, I would not hold my breath over expecting anyone on the federal level to get involved in reducing statutes of limitations. Or, in legislating some good will measure that exonerates a group like BSA because it performs some beneficial role in society. As I also outlined earlier, we really can't claim to perform an essential service for the nation's youth. We serve a diminishingly small slice of it and have had to deal with some explosive social issues while doing so and are now facing a raft of bad publicity with the bankruptcy case.  I can't picture the champion for that fight so I'm not sure what we are really trying to hash out here.  Should the BSA shoulder its responsibility to victims? Yes. Is it fair for the current scouting community to shoulder that burden? No. Will it likely happen anyway? I fear that, yes, it will.  

[ParkMan]

30 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I can see trying to persuade you that such blanket immunity is dangerous and that being a not for profit, no matter how noble (BSA, Feeding America, Red Cross, etc.) should not grant you immunity. So, I'm done here.

I never claimed that.  I simply said that at some point there should be a limit on how long we let lawsuits continue to linger.  There comes a point in time where history is history.

[Sentinel947]

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

I never claimed that.  I simply said that at some point there should be a limit on how long we let lawsuits continue to linger.  There comes a point in time where history is history.

That's the whole point of statue of limitations. As other posters have noted, there are claimants who cannot remember basic details about the alleged abuse: when, where, who? I hate being in a position where I'm casting doubt on abuse claims, but how can the BSA or any organization defend itself against 30, 40, 50 year old claims, particularly when the victim cannot remember any of the details either? 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, yknot said:

Or, in legislating some good will measure that exonerates a group like BSA because it performs some beneficial role in society. As I also outlined earlier, we really can't claim to perform an essential service for the nation's youth. We serve a diminishingly small slice of it and have had to deal with some explosive social issues while doing so and are now facing a raft of bad publicity with the bankruptcy case.

Exactly. Even before all these claims, BSA was dying and hemorrhaging money and membership.

This is not post-WW II Americana.

The dig-in-your-heels approach to homosexuality and allowing for girls in Cubs/Scouts, BSA saw to it that once the change of mind did occur (e.g. allowing girls in and openly homosexual scouts and scouters) that it was too late for a large percentage of people.

The abuse claims and bankruptcy are simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Sentinel947 said:

That's the whole point of statue of limitations. As other posters have noted, there are claimants who cannot remember basic details about the alleged abuse: when, where, who? I hate being in a position where I'm casting doubt on abuse claims, but how can the BSA or any organization defend itself against 30, 40, 50 year old claims, particularly when the victim cannot remember any of the details either? 

Simple: the the claimant cannot even provide sufficient information to assert a claim, it is going to be dismissed.

Again, there's this myth that you simply have to say "I was abused, pay me" and then suddenly the person is going to get cash.

That's not the case. At all.

[skeptic]

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So what? I'm not sure I understand. Are you arguing that if an Assistant Scoutmaster was molesting Scouts, the fact that the same person may have been molesting kids at the YMCA makes it OK? Remember, the attorney is hired by a particular client (John Scout). That the ASM was molesting James YMCA-Person does NOT mean the attorney has to serve as that person's attorney, too.

And that's the point behind discovery. There's this notion that all you have to do is file a claim and BSA is going to be forced to pay. That's not the deal, at all. The idea is that post-November 16 the claims will be assessed individually.

I've already gotten word from my council that only about 20-30% of claims are "with specificity" (meaning that they can at least identify the legal minimum to assert a claim). There's still going to be a review period here folks.

First, it is going to require a modicum of validation. I really, really don't know where people get the idea that any male over the age of 30 is going to be able to assert a claim and get money automatically.

As for comparative stats for other organizations, so what? The court's not going to look at "Well, the BSA had pedophiles, but nowhere NEAR as many as the YMCA, therefore the BSA gets to walk on this." The fact that other organizations had 100% pedophiles or 0% pedophiles does nothing regarding whether:

1) a particular person

2) has a particular claim

3) against a particular Council and/or National

4) for a particular amount

 

No, I am suggesting that IF a claim is being brought against the BSA against a specific individual that "other" possible responsible entities might also be investigated to determine IF they did everything to make sure abuse did not happen, and it it might have, follow up both on the possibly incident and the addition of that entity into their broad brush lawsuit.  We all know that the more checks and investigations of someone that occur, the more likely something might jump out.  If we are going to beat the bushes, lets beat those on the periphery as well.  Meanwhile, exercise due diligence against the lawyers who, if the postings here are accurate, have suspicious or non existent addresses for contacting them.  That, in itself, might be grounds for a judgement of some sort, or so it might seem to a non legal individual.  It just seems to reflect that they are shysters to me.  

Again, I am mostly spitting in the wind.  The two main posters here seem to obviously not really care about leveling the playing field, or the survival of BSA.  JMO of course.  Since real logic and simple common sense appear to be in slight supply, I will go back to reading and shaking my head at the absurdity of most of this whole thing.  

[CynicalScouter]

OK, let's get back to the Chapter 11 so I can dispel some myths here.

The November 16 date does NOT mean that anyone who files any scrap of paper that says "I wuz abused, pay me!" is going to get a payout.

Here's the claim form. I am going to walk people through step by step here.

PART 1: CONFIDENTIALITY

Do you want your identity released to the general public or not?

PART 2: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

Who are you (the abuse claimant" and who is your lawyer (if you have one)

PART 3: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVOR

What's your background? This may come up in the context of loss of income from the abuse. See in particular Section E. Involvement with Scouting which asks for what unit/years

PART 4: NATURE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE

This is incredibly detailed. People are asked for dates, times, locations, individuals, units. When was the abuse? What kind of abuse (in graphic, graphic terms)? This goes on for almost 4 pages.

PART 5: IMPACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE

What was the impact of the abuse on the person? Mental? Physical? Emotional? Financial?

PART 6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Did you sue BSA before?

SIGNATURE

And I quote

Quote

Penalty for presenting a fraudulent claim is a fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157 and 3571.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

I know/see many here simply look at everyone who is filing a claim is a bunch of greedy liars who are just making wild accusations without any specificity and BSA and the Councils are just innocent victims. Hopefully reading through the above will put the lie to some of that.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

No, I am suggesting that IF a claim is being brought against the BSA against a specific individual that "other" possible responsible entities might also be investigated to determine IF they did everything to make sure abuse did not happen, and it it might have, follow up both on the possibly incident and the addition of that entity into their broad brush lawsuit.

This isn't a "broad brush lawsuit". Have you read it or any of the ones filed? Or the claims filed with the court? They specific dates, times, locations, etc. And if they don't (which I've been told many do NOT) they will be dismissed for "failure to state a claim."

And the suit is claimants vs. BSA and Councils. The fact that the scout leader may (or may not) have been molesting kids at the YMCA does NOT have any bearing on the question of whether or not they molested this particular kid at this particular scout event/unit.

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

 If we are going to beat the bushes, lets beat those on the periphery as well.  Meanwhile, exercise due diligence against the lawyers who, if the postings here are accurate, have suspicious or non existent addresses for contacting them.  That, in itself, might be grounds for a judgement of some sort, or so it might seem to a non legal individual.  It just seems to reflect that they are shysters to me.

There are several lawyers involved here. Those are only two and they are NOT the lead lawyers as per the court filings. On the contrary, the real lead attorneys (TCC) are eager to keep those two OUT.

And even if those two lawyers are absolutely violating the code of conduct, that does NOT mean that the claims of the people involved are waived and a judgement against them. Those victims may have been duped by the two lawyers.

Edited October 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[TAHAWK]

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Simple: the the claimant cannot even provide sufficient information to assert a claim, it is going to be dismissed.

Again, there's this myth that you simply have to say "I was abused, pay me" and then suddenly the person is going to get cash.

That's not the case. At all.

We had a claim where the plaintiff supplies copious details.  We could find no information within the Telephone Company that the plaintiff existed, much less that one of our trucks hit him in a Cleveland street then left the alleged scene. It was late on the night of a storm, and we had nearly twenty trucks out working, some in that area.  All the trucks were carefully inspected - by us and the CPD, with no indication of an impact.  He also had a medical reports attesting to his injuries -  a fractured pelvis and broken arm included.  Fortunately, we could prove he was in jail in Toledo that night, following an automobile accident  If his claim was allowed fifty years later, it would have likely gone to a jury. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by TAHAWK

[ParkMan]

21 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

That's the whole point of statue of limitations. As other posters have noted, there are claimants who cannot remember basic details about the alleged abuse: when, where, who? I hate being in a position where I'm casting doubt on abuse claims, but how can the BSA or any organization defend itself against 30, 40, 50 year old claims, particularly when the victim cannot remember any of the details either? 

This is what led me to say that perhaps it's time for Congress to say - enough on continual and perhaps even open ended extensions to the statute of limitations.

Somewhere in there is a reasonable length for how long an entity should be liable.

• perhaps for a person liability extends to their whole lifetime
• perhaps for a for-profit corporation that liability is longer because of the gain in profits and the ability to assess stock holders
• perhaps for non-profits the statute of limitations is shorter because there is no ownership group.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

We had a claim where the plaintiff supplies copious details.

One person lied, therefore all the victims claiming abuse against the BSA are liars.

Got it.

[ParkMan]

31 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Exactly. Even before all these claims, BSA was dying and hemorrhaging money and membership.

Which is why the BSA needs to not be focused on continually and endlessly fighting lawsuits.  The BSA needs to be focused on adapting it's program to the needs of today's youth so that they can fulfill their charter:

Quote

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

And when said corporation is endlessly fighting lawsuits from the events of 30 or 40 years ago is a little hard to do.  Let the corporation focus on doing what Congress asked them to do.

[Eagle94-A1]

Folks,

Would it be possible to take a pause for a little bit? I know this is a very challenging issue that is extremely multifaceted.  I see all sides of the arguments. I know folks who were molested, I know someone falsely accused (criminal investigation conducted and evidence supported her story), and I had to keep Cubs occupied while police intervened (that was not a good night at camp).

Let's remember the #1 goal of the lead lawyer as stated in the Diane Rheem interview linked in a previous post and in another interview I heard him in : the complete dissolution of the Boy Scouts of America and IF (emphasis in interview) an organization like the Boy Scouts is still needed, it start from scratch.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Which is why the BSA needs to not be focused on continually and endlessly fighting lawsuits.  The BSA needs to be focused on adapting it's program to the needs of today's youth so that they can fulfill their charter:

And it will. The "endless lawsuits" will all end, one way of the other, in 2021. The claims deadline is in a month.