Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I’d like to say both

I'd like to say I'm glad to be neither. 

[JoeBob]

I've been waiting on one of  our lawyers to chime in about the National Charter; but it hasn't happened yet, so:

If the Local Councils can be held liable, and pass some of that liability to the Chartering Organizations, who are acknowledged as being mostly ceremonial, why isn't the Ceremonial National Chartering Organization, the US Congress, also liable?  

Lawyers look for the deepest pockets, and the US Treasury is pretty deep.  Ask Joe Biden.

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

why isn't the Ceremonial National Chartering Organization, the US Congress, also liable?  

Say hello to their little friend, Sovereign Immunity. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/governmental_immunity

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

I think there is another way that has been used in other class action suits, often regarding health issues

I think we are talking two different things.

 

1. @qwazseand his efforts to use the claims filings in the BSA sexual abuse claims to draw conclusions/make extrapolations about child sexual abuse in general OR BSA sexual abuse in particular. He cannot in any reasonable way do so, for the reasons I mentioned.
2. Data necessary to assess the value of a tort claim in a child sexual abuse claim or track claims. THAT can be done looking at all prior claims, in the manner you are suggesting.

[CynicalScouter]

31 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

If the Local Councils can be held liable, and pass some of that liability to the Chartering Organizations, who are acknowledged as being mostly ceremonial, why isn't the Ceremonial National Chartering Organization, the US Congress, also liable?  

There are so many things wrong with this sentence.

1) It is NOT that the LCs are "passing liability to COs". The legal argument was and is that BOTH the CO and the LC had a responsibility to operate the scouting program in a way to prevent the abuse in the first place and they were BOTH negligent in how they did it. The CO and the LC had a "duty to care" to see children were not harmed, and they were negligent. Agree, disagree, don't care. That's the legal argument and, more often than not especially after the Oregon courts ordered the IV files released, it's been a winning argument.

2) The LCs are by no means "ceremonial". They operate and oversee the program locally. They were the ones sending (or not sending) materials to the IV files in National.

3) The COs were by no means "ceremonial" either. Now, the COs may have acted that way and neglected to even try to provide a minimum of oversight of the units, but that was their dumb mistake. Maybe if they had paid more attention some (not all, some) of this wouldn't have happened. But they didn't. So, here we are.

4) Congress isn't liable for BSA's actions for the same reason that your Secretary of State's office isn't liable for when it issues a business license/articles of incorporation to a business that then dumps toxic waste in your front yard. The Congressional Charter is an honorific. it is ceremonial. It does NOT make BSA any kind of government entity or Congress liable. It simply says BSA is licensed to do business.

PS: I'd argue this has nothing to do with governmental immunity or sovereign but a different species called legislative immunity. In short, passage of a "bad" law (unconstitutional, one you just don't like, one that is abused, whatever) can NOT be used as the basis to sue the legislature in general or individual legislators in particular.

I've seen arguments that this is a sub-species of governmental or sovereign and not wholly different. I'm...not persuaded especially when for example the executive branch asserts or imposes on the legislative branch, but that's another story.

Edited June 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

PS: I'd argue this has nothing to do with governmental immunity or sovereign but a different species called legislative immunity. In short, passage of a "bad" law (unconstitutional, one you just don't like, one that is abused, whatever) can NOT be used as the basis to sue the legislature in general or individual legislators in particular.

I know. I just like my Scarface reference better with the word “sovereign” in it. It was not a substantive note. I can’t hear Al Pacino using that terrible accent being able to properly mangle the word “legislative.” Can you? Send me the audio clip, if you do it! 😉

[JoeBob]

If Statutes of Limitations  can be waived (look back windows),  why can't Sovereign Immunity be bypassed?  Lawyers will argue "BSA doesn't have enough money to reasonably compensate the thousands of victims.  Only government can afford the amounts necessary to justly compensate the many poor abused victims..."

And our 40% will be...

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

why can't Sovereign Immunity be bypassed?

It can be...only if waived by the government itself. And as I said, the Congressional Charter is not such a waiver.

[johnsch322]

9 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

If Statutes of Limitations  can be waived (look back windows),  why can't Sovereign Immunity be bypassed?  Lawyers will argue "BSA doesn't have enough money to reasonably compensate the thousands of victims.  Only government can afford the amounts necessary to justly compensate the many poor abused victims..."

And our 40% will be...

I learned while serving in the military you can only sue the government  if the give you permission.  There will be no permission granted. 

[100thEagleScout]

12 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

If Statutes of Limitations  can be waived (look back windows),  why can't Sovereign Immunity be bypassed?  Lawyers will argue "BSA doesn't have enough money to reasonably compensate the thousands of victims.  Only government can afford the amounts necessary to justly compensate the many poor abused victims..."

And our 40% will be...

The government is already in debt over its head and asking them for more would only further devalue our money.  I’m not personally looking for a handout, I’m looking for compensation.

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

compensation

Let’s go with recompense.

[Eagle1970]

In my case, the Catholic Parish that sponsored our troop benefited by providing the complete package-Church, School, and social life consisting of youth organizations and Scouts.  I can see the potential liability because even without directly running the Scout troop, the troop WAS operating under the Parish brand.  And had I not been invested in the balance of the package, I may not have been a Scout.  And therefore may not have been abused.  

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

And had I not been invested in the balance of the package, I may not have been a Scout.  And therefore may not have been abused.  

Very, very good point. Same for me. The Troop was our “parish and school” Troop, integrally woven into the whole along w CCD, the Fall Festival, raffles and etc.  

[fred8033]

7 hours ago, JoeBob said:

I've been waiting on one of  our lawyers to chime in about the National Charter; but it hasn't happened yet, so:

If the Local Councils can be held liable, and pass some of that liability to the Chartering Organizations, who are acknowledged as being mostly ceremonial, why isn't the Ceremonial National Chartering Organization, the US Congress, also liable?  

Lawyers look for the deepest pockets, and the US Treasury is pretty deep.  Ask Joe Biden.

I've wondered that continually too.

[fred8033]

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Say hello to their little friend, Sovereign Immunity. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/governmental_immunity

Isn't that protecting the individual "actors"?   ... mayors, governors, police chiefs, etc.  It doesn't protect the organizations.  Cities.  School districts.  Counties.  Federal government.   Governments organizations are sued all the time for damages.