Chapter 11 announced

[fred8033]

20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on state or federal ex post facto laws applies to criminal laws only, not civil.

 

Thank you.  That's triggering a lot of reading.   Supreme court decision from 1798.  

I'm still reading on this.  It is truly a complex topic.  I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.  I confused when I read things such as this:  "The cases cited hold that the ex post facto effect of a law cannot be evaded by giving a civil form to that which is essentially criminal."  ... I'm still wondering how this is all possible.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Pointing to an article I could ready would be fine.

I understand from following the forum that many here do not support SOL reform for child sexual abuse. That said, the most active and influential organization working toward these changes is CHILD USA. You will find most information at their site and via their organization. The founder and principal force is law professor Marci Hamilton. https://childusa.org/

Edited February 24, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

50 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I understand from following the forum that many here do not support SOL reform for child sexual abuse

I believe the concern is that it creates an automatic payment system. Based on many interactions with people here and elsewhere, there's an assumption that SOL lookback windows simply mean that

1) Cheats, crooks, and liars will make up stories about events from far enough back (30+ years) that the individuals involve have forgotten and/or dead.

2) That said cheats, crooks, and liars upon filing a suit (or claim) will instantly be 100% believed, unquestioned (or unquestionable since, as noted, all others parties are forgotten and/or dead) and handed a bag full of money.

3) That this weighs too heavily toward punishing institutions vs. individuals. The Scoutmaster who sexually abused a scout in, say, 1954 is by this point 90+ years old and/or dead. BSA, the Council, and the CO, however, because of being perpetual are on the hook entirely and, apparently, eternally.

4) This punishes scouts. Consider the asbestos lawsuits. To this day, they are ongoing. The entities that have to pay are corporations, therefore the only people being harmed are shareholders and investors all of whom are adults (I suppose a child can own stock, but that's a minor point). And the Catholic Church? Sure, the diocese may be hit, but the financial and programmatic damage done is on adults who pay into the collection plate.

For many here, SOL "reform" means young men and women TODAY losing their camps TODAY for things that happened 1-2 LIFETIMES ago. They are losing their units (who won't be rechartered after COs walked away). Their opportunities.  I had one parent tell me "Why should my kid pay for some pedo 50 years ago?"

Now, from a purely legal standpoint you can say "only the incorporated entity called Boy Scouts of America, Inc. is being forced to pay" or "only the incorporated entity called "XYZ Council, Inc. is being harmed". But a) the perception is there that little Johnnie and Janie Cub Scout's popcorn fundraising is going straight to the alleged victims (who, again per item #1 above are assumed to often be liars, cheats, and crooks looking to make a buck) and b) the reality is that with the talk of 95,000 claims and folks like Kosnoff just ITCHING to liquidated BSA National and go after Councils and COs, things are bad and getting worse.

Again, if this were a regular corporate entity being forced to pay damages for actions taken 40+ years ago it would be one thing (asbestos suits, Agent Orange, etc.) But BSA isn't a regular corporate entity.

The rationale part of me, the part that can work my head around the law on this gets it: because corporations are perpetual they also have to suffer from wrongs done decades ago when SOLs are extended.

But the sympathetic part of me is torn between wanting to help victims and watching Councils holding firesales for camps and being forced to make massive payments for actions DECADES ago.

It is the same part that can understand when parents and leaders come back and ask over and over: why are WE paying? Why is MY scout suffering? "Why should my kid pay for some pedo 50 years ago?"

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

All good points and I do understand. I try not to be unreasonable or irrational, driven only by my situation and experience. It would take me a good bit to adequately and substantively reply to such an excellent articulation. It deserves a full, thoughtful and proper answer. I'll see if I can do that offline and loop back.

[CynicalScouter]

23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

It deserves a full, thoughtful and proper answer. I'll see if I can do that offline and loop back.

There's no need. I mean that in the nicest way.

1) People upset at the prospect of THEIR kid having to lose camp or THEIR chartered organization refusing to recharter are simply not going to see why things that happened 3-4 decades ago a) need to be paid for now and b) why the debt is being pay through their kid's suffering.

It isn't going to be any comfort to explain that "Well, the corporate entity called Boy Scouts of America is who is on the hook here." All they see is their kid, losing scouting.

Sidenote: How much of the catastrophic loss in BSA is due to

a) LDS leaving

b) general declines in ALL such programs like 4-H and GSUSA

c) general disgust at BSA for being "too liberal" (allowing girls in)

d) general disgust at BSA being associated with sexual abuse

e) COVID and

f) the actual bankruptcy

is WAY too confusing and complex to explain how each overlapping factor plays out and to what extent.

"The lawyers and their clients are lying about events from 40 years ago to get money from my kid." is simple, elegant, and completely (or almost completely) wrong. But it can be explained in under 4 seconds and processed just as easy.

2) Trying to explain, debate, and balance the societal benefits/detriments to extending SOL for sexual abuse claims in general, and for victims in particular, is too complicated and nuanced. If I can't explain this to a den leader in under 90 seconds (which I can't, no one can), they are going to default to item #1: my kid/my scout is getting screwed.

3) The positions are already locked in. Those in favor of SOL windows for BSA are already locked in. There's no "persuadable" here and, because it isn't like this is going to be on a ballot anywhere, there's no need to persuade the general public. Just get members of the legislature to your side, and you get the SOL lookback window. When the corporation is manufacturers of asbestos, or Agent Orange, or something like that, people don't care. It is too far removed (sure, some stockholder somewhere down the line might see their stock price drop. Boo hoo). But what people see now is "my kid's CO refuses to recharter because they are scared of being sued into oblivion," FORGET that even if the CO removed the Troop in 2021, they are STILL (possibly) liable for abuse in 1975. They are in full blow panic here. The Diocese of Dallas at this point has removed ALL BSA units and will now only allow them rental agreements.

There are LOTS of units losing, LOTS of scouts losing, LOTS of families, TODAY.

Nothing you can say is going to persuade. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[mrjohns2]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

c) general disgust at BSA for being "too liberal" (allowing girls in)

I would add e) general disgust at the BSA for being "too conservative" (not allowing in gay leaders/scouts for so many years, belief in god requirement, connection to LDS, not allowing girls in for so long, perception of connections to the military, headquartered in conservative Texas, and old fashioned/outdated values).

Coming from more liberal circles, this is the perspective. It is so hard now that both "sides" are not happy with the BSA.

[ParkMan]

I have similar struggles with the idea of extending SOL for civil liabilities for non-profit organizations like the BSA.

Extending SOL for criminal prosecution is something that I am 100% behind.  I am 100% in support of extending SOL for civil liabilities for individuals.  If an individual abused a Scout, 75 years ago they should held criminally and civilly liable to the fullest extent of the law.  Similarly, for profit corporations that benefit financially and use that benefit to build their stock value should be held liable as well.

Further - I of course want to see victims of abuse receive compensation for the reprehensible things that happened.

In the case of an organization like the BSA - the organization today has very few ties to what happened 30+ years ago.  The organization has taken numerous steps to correct the mistakes it made in the past.  From what I can tell, the BSA today is a leader in preventing the abuse of youth in the program.

The sums of money being discussed here are such that they may very well destroy the program nationally.  I expect our council will have a large bill to pay next year even if the BSA survives.  There is a decent chance we'll sell our camp to pay for it.  The kids in the program will undoubtly be paying $100+ a year in dues next year.  I expect we'll see 50% of the remaining professional staff in the BSA laid to help meet the payments.  Professionals nationally were laid off in droves already.

So while I absolutely want to compensate victims and I absolutely want to make it easy for victims to come forward, I do question the cost to the kids of today.  I suspect that kids of today would have been better off with some sort of court mandated oversight to ensure that rampant abuse of kids 30+ years ago was never possible again.

I've no idea what the right answer is here.

Edited February 24, 2021 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[Eagle1993]

32 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I would add e) general disgust at the BSA for being "too conservative" (not allowing in gay leaders/scouts for so many years, belief in god requirement, connection to LDS, not allowing girls in for so long, perception of connections to the military, headquartered in conservative Texas, and old fashioned/outdated values).

Coming from more liberal circles, this is the perspective. It is so hard now that both "sides" are not happy with the BSA.

Our Cubmaster was thrown out of a liberal organization due to her association with the brown shirts of America (BSA).  This was 2 years ago.

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

All good points and I do understand. I try not to be unreasonable or irrational, driven only by my situation and experience. It would take me a good bit to adequately and substantively reply to such an excellent articulation. It deserves a full, thoughtful and proper answer. I'll see if I can do that offline and loop back.

For those abused, I have nothing but sympathy and  I think everyone involved in scouting would (or should) fell nothing but sorrow for what they went through.  I honestly don't blame anyone who was abused for seeking justice in this bankruptcy.  I expect I would want to do that.

That said, I don't think civil litigation is the best way to handle improving the current situation.  Identifying what should be required, passing laws and punishing groups that go afoul would probably have a better result.  Ideas such as a national volunteer database (similar to sex offender), mandatory reporting, mandatory background checks, etc.  Those give clear cut rules for organizations to implement.  Right now, organizations are faced with a guessing game + insurance companies telling them what to do.  In some cases, they simply give up.  In others, they may make modifications that don't really reduce risk and only damage the program.

While I am concerned about the BSA, I am more concerned that we are headed into a wild west of youth protection.  BSA's bankruptcy is the start.  There will be many more youth organizations going down over the next decade and what comes out may not be pretty.  Lets hope the lawmakers spend some time providing rules for youth organizations to follow (and then be protected by) instead of just changing SOLs.

[CynicalScouter]

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

That said, I don't think civil litigation is the best way to handle improving the current situation. 

And yet, that ship has sailed. Civil litigation in this arena is here to stay.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Nothing you can say is going to persuade. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

It had nothing to do with trying to convince you, a den mother, a Scout or anyone else. I don't believe that's what I've been doing or attempted to do here. I wanted to offer a respectful and thoughtful response from my experience. You raised great points in both posts and I wanted to ponder and engage the various elements.

I believe you meant it to read well on my end, but I can't say it did. Rather harsh, but I am the outlier here and, at times, that is clear. I was aware of when I started to post and take it for what it is. Happy to take my ball and jax and leave the playground.

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I wanted to offer a respectful and thoughtful response from my experience.

I understand. My point is that your specific experience is not going to matter (or matter much) when, in the aggregate, parents and scouts are losing out.

I have no doubt yours was/is a horrible experience. I am trying to say that your laying it out will not in anyway provide a response, or a sufficient one, for many/most at this point.

What they see is their scout unit is gone.

What they see is their CO refusing to recharter them.

What they see is their dues skyrocketing.

What they see is their son/daughter losing out.

And your story, as tragic as it may be, is not going to be enough of a response as to why all these bad things are happening and why SOLs should be extended, up to (and possibly including) the liquidation and destruction of BSA.

[yknot]

11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

It had nothing to do with trying to convince you, a den mother, a Scout or anyone else. I don't believe that's what I've been doing or attempted to do here. I wanted to offer a respectful and thoughtful response from my experience. You raised great points in both posts and I wanted to ponder and engage the various elements.

I believe you meant it to read well on my end, but I can't say it did. Rather harsh, but I am the outlier here and, at times, that is clear. I was aware of when I started to post and take it for what it is. Happy to take my ball and jax and leave the playground.

I wouldn't do that.

Just because something happened 50 years ago doesn't mean it can't be verified even if the perpetrator is dead. I believe in a reasonable look back process because forensic investigation can validate many claims. Also, the vast majority of the claims -- about 85% -- were made by men in their mid forties to early fifties so the reality is that many perpetrators or at least corroborating witnesses are certainly possibly alive. 

 

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, yknot said:

Also, the vast majority of the claims -- about 85% -- were made by men in their mid forties to early fifties so the reality is that many perpetrators or at least corroborating witnesses are certainly possibly alive. 

That is accurate.

For what's it worth, I am 60. My Scout Master/abuser is ten years older than I am. In 1971, he traveled across our town to a troop in need of a leader and got the job. He was 20. If I was visiting my mother, I could knock on his door, he'd welcome me and offer me a beer. He always did. Well, unless of course, he's finally quaking in his boots. Unknown to him, I started my effort to prosecute him - with no intent or effort to pursue civil action against anyone - 20 years ago.  

[RememberSchiff]

11 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

If the injunction is extended again, I wonder if the Court will directly comment on the BSA claim that their councils are  independent business units.

Edited February 25, 2021 by RememberSchiff
grammar