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

[CynicalScouter]

14 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

If  Scouting, as distinct from BSA, would be destroyed for the actual and alleged acts and omissions of, largely, the dead, is that OK?  Just asking.

Talk about drama.

Other than the small cadre of Kosnoff-types, NO ONE (not the TCC, not the FCR, not even the Coalition) is talking about "destroying" BSA or scouting. NO ONE. That's just a straw-man.

This is a Chapter 11, not a Chapter 7, proceeding.

What is being discussed is how to come up with a financial plan for BSA (toggle plan) or BSA and the LCs (Global settlement) that

1. Compensates the abuse victims to the maximum amount possible (TCC's sole mission) and
2. Results in BSA (or BSA and the LCs) survival.

The real debate is what is the "maximum amount possible." BSA seems to be thinking a number at or near $1 billion. TCC is talking more, but has not set out a firm number.

NO ONE (again other that Kosnoff) is talking liquidation. Not one is talking about wanting BSA "destroyed". In fact, even if the TCC wanted BSA "destroyed" they cannot because a) a not for profit cannot be forced into Chapter 7 and b) whatever reorganization plan is developed HAS to convince the judge that it will result in BSA's survival (or BSA and the LCs in the global plan).

So please, stop with the "BSA destroyed" or "Scouting destroyed" motif. It is a tiresome straw-man.

Edited May 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Then we can discusss compensation for the descendents of millions of thise held in chattel slavery by citizens of the U.S., Russia, UK, Netherlands, Spain, Brazil, France, Portugal, and the rest.    All the slaveholders are dead but the nations and their cirizens remain. 

Then there are the the descendnets and victims of racism. . Most of the racists, like Robert Byrd Woodrow Wilson, and Strom Thurmond,to name a very few,  are dead, but some are alive, the  property of dead racists was often passed down tpo today's citizens, racists or not.

Henry Ford overtly supported National Socialism and, pointly, it's anti-Semitism.  The corporation exists.  The Ford oundation funded by Henry Ford esusts.

Then we can discuss reparations for American Indians.

Nice. Absolute none of which has to do with a) corporate liability for b) corporate negligence, which is what is the issue in the BSA cases.

[Eagledad]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Not exactly. BSA is the target because it acting with negligence regarding the sexual abuse AND has money.

Really! How! As I said, elephant in the room. 

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Those in scouting who absolutely, positively do NOT want to have their money go to pay for BSA's debts are free to leave.

Yep, standard blow off when emotional reasoning isn't convincing.

I'm reasonable, Most here are reasonable. Convince us BSA is truly at fault.

Here is you problem with me and several of us, I was heavily involved with the BSA for over 30 years at both the youth and adult ages and at all levels of administration. I worked and trained with thousands of adults and scouts. I never heard of an act sexual abuse.

Now, I'm not so naïve to believe it didn't happen, and that the numbers are in the hundreds over the many dozens of years. But, I personally never heard of one act of sexual abuse from adults or scouts during my long scouting experience. So, why should I believe a respected noble youth program over a century old should be killed without convincing evidence the organization as a whole is as negligent as you suggest?

Now, you may say that just because I never heard of an sexual abuse instance, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. My response is that I was pretty heavily networked in the organization and I feel my experience in general represents the nature of  the BSA and this subject overall. 

Barry

[Owls_are_cool]

51 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As such, if you do not want to pay into the victims fund? Fine! Leave! No one is going to come after your personal assets or hunt you down or what not.

Or I can get you to pay the registration fees for adults and scouts in my troop, so we can continue to invest in the scouts' character, citizenship, physical fitness, and leadership. Or is that ceasing to be the goal in the near future?

[Eagledad]

18 minutes ago, MattR said:

Sorry, I don't buy that. The moderators keep trying to keep this thread as just news about the court case. We have split off other threads, including what's fair, and nobody seems to be interested in keeping those threads going. Everyone just piles more into this thread, which by the way, is some hundreds of pages long if you include the previous ones we capped. When we try and tamp some of the anger down it's because the original intent (information about the court case) gets pushed to the side by everyone's opinions about what is right/wrong about everyone else's opinions.

Personally, I think a discussion about what's fair would be good as it brings up a lot of ethical issues. But as long as the discussion is stuck on winners and losers, it's a dead end.

Best of luck.

OK, but somehow the splits loose posts. Or I just don't see the new threads. If that is the case, I apologize. I do agree with the splitting, but this is like the gay issue years back, it's complicated and so intertwined that one specific thread is almost next to impossible.

Barry 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

This is not a fair conversation. Nobody here wishes you ill will, in fact just the opposite. This is not about us against them, as a couple here keep suggesting, it's about question of fairness over the future of a century old youth organization.. But, every time the discussion veers toward that question, the mod steps in and reformates (deletes) that part of the discussion and then says stick to the subject. Then, the thread starts out away from the question of fairness, but eventually works it's way back, AGAIN. I believe many of the members here want to express a frustration. But, not the moderator. 

Barry

In my reading, this is way far afield from the point I was trying to make. Forgive me if I wasn't clear.

The "let's compare," was trying to draw out what I see as the horribly offensive notion that the sexual abuse of boys is somehow concomitant with "reduced programs" or "increased registration fees." I may misstate, but I don't think so. Someone says they are going to be "abused" by BSA paying sexual abuse victims. It is the wrong way to "pay" for someone else's sexual abuse by a long gone volunteer who worked for/with the organization into which he pays dues and within which his programs are reduced. I'm asking for a comparison of damages and impact. I think that's more than fair. The exercise if a trick and a futility. There is no way to compare them.

Am I asking for a "tap out" or "I yield and agree with your point?" Absolutely I am. As has been said, no one is being forced to associate with an organization that, by its own implicit admission, has overseen the abuse of boys. 8, 80, 800, 8,000 or 84,000. Increased dues and reduced programs are not some random, indiscriminate or mandatory tax that cannot be legally evaded. There is a way out of feeling the "abusive" impact on the volunteers within the organization being held accountable. Yes, volunteers and donors have been and will be impacted. That impact pales in comparison to what was heaped on sexual abuse victims. Some believe and repeat "there are two wrongs" here and that doesn't make things "right." I say, there is one evil assault resulting in vicious injustice and tragedy, and one unfortunate and uncomfortable inconvenience. 

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Really! How!

There's already been dozens of cases in which BSA has lost on this claim, the most famous of which was the case in Oregon in 2010. I spelled it all out here.

1. Negligence/Duty of reasonable care - BSA had an obligation to look after these kids and not let them be harmed.
2. Negligence in Supervision - the abusive leader was an "agent of [Boy Scouts] was under [Boy Scouts] direct supervision, and control" using BSA methods, uniforms, instruction, etc.
3. Negligence in Retention - the abusive leader was not shoved out the door fast enough
4. Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts failed to do enough of a background check to detect the abuser's tendencies and nevertheless held the abusive leader out as a "competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor."

As for the 84,000 claims, the idea is that each will be reviewed by the Settlement Trustee to determine negligence in each instance/claim.

Edited May 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

16 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Convince us BSA is truly at fault.

Accepted US legal definition of fault:

Fault IS a negligent or intentional failure to act reasonably or according to LAW or duty. It is an improper act or omission causing injury to another and arising from ignorance, carelessness, or negligence. Faults may be gross, ordinary, and slight.

[CynicalScouter]

31 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Convince us BSA is truly at fault.

In all 84,000 cases? Can't for all 84,000. That's what the judge (well, more likely the Settlement Claims Trustee) will decide on a case by case basis.

In the cases already filed and that BSA lost? Sure. Courts have already found BSA liable, most famously in the Oregon case.

Jury verdict hits Boy Scouts with $18.5 million in punitive damages

BSA is going to pay. The only question is how much, and when.

31 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

So, why should I believe a respected noble youth program over a century old should be killed without convincing evidence the organization as a whole is as negligent as you suggest?

Again, no one is talking about "killing" BSA other than Kosnoff. Nice straw-man.

But a "noble organization" that let 84,000 children be sexually abused maybe isn't so noble.

A "noble organization" who we now know KEPT THE ABUSE SECRET and directed people to remain silent maybe isn't so noble.

We have BSA executives admitting IN WRITING as early as 1965 that they kept the abuse secret "to save the name of Scouting."

That's a "noble" organization? Really?

EDIT: How about this from 1972?

Quote

In another case, in 1972, a Pennsylvania Scouting executive urged BSA headquarters to drop the case against a suspected abuser because he was undergoing professional treatment. “If it don’t stink, don’t stir it,” the local executive wrote, according to the AP.

There's that "noble" organization.

Edited May 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

21 minutes ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Or I can get you to pay the registration fees for adults and scouts in my troop, so we can continue to invest in the scouts' character, citizenship, physical fitness, and leadership

Nope. As I said: you don't want to pay the victims, leave. There's no plan C.

[CynicalScouter]

16 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Accepted US legal definition of fault:

Fault IS a negligent or intentional failure to act reasonably or according to LAW or duty. It is an improper act or omission causing injury to another and arising from ignorance, carelessness, or negligence. Faults may be gross, ordinary, and slight.

Yep. And while BSA National may NOT be at fault in all 84,000 claims, they will be found at fault in a great many. Enough that they knew they had to file for bankruptcy to get ahead of the curve. And THAT was when they suspected there were "only" about 10,000 abuse cases.

BSA is going to pay.

So are the LCs.

So are a good many COs.

The question is not if anymore. It is when, and how much.

Edited May 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[vol_scouter]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here's what I want you to do. Right now.

Go to to Omni Court Docket for the BSA bankruptcy. https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d&tagid=1153

Search the documents for the phrase "Letter Regarding Abuse" and read them.

Most are heavily redacted, you want to know why? Because within those black bars are the details of the abuse and the abuser. Some go on for pages.

Even beyond the black bars there are details enough: dates, locations, locations within locations (e.g. trailer in Camp ABC)

This morning I just read through another 20 such letters filed in the last 24 hours.

Then I want you to come back here, keep defending BSA.

These people are NOT asking for their memories to be 100% accepted. They are being asked to be able to at LEAST have their claims reviewed (they say court, but it would be a claims administrator) and the opportunity to have their voices heard.

Keep defending BSA. Keep talking about liars and "vultures".

Before now, I have read a number of the cases.  There are many horrific accounts.

Beyond that, I have cared for patients who were abused as children and, like PTSD, the results can be ruin lives and relationships.  

I have never said that people who were abused should not be compensated nor have ever called them names.

 

 

[yknot]

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, but my point is that GSUSA is not out their banging the drum about how super fantastic awesome its YPT is. BSA was.

And GSUSA wasn't staring down dozens (early 1990s-2010s) to hunderds (2010-) of sexual abuse lawsuits. BSA was.

So, if GSUSA is only 50% trained on their version of youth protection, meh.

If BSA is only 66% of of 2018, oof.

About 88% of CSA cases are perpetrated by men, so youth organizations that have a higher percentage of female leadership or involvement by default have lower levels of CSA. It's something BSA has never acknowledged or addressed in its YPT. Female abusers are often quite different -- they often work in tandem with another abuser (typically male) to victimize an extremely young child in their care or they fall into the "cougar" category -- an older teacher for example despoiling a student in situations that are inherently wrong but in some sense more consensual than adult male on minor male or minor female abuse.

[Eagledad]

53 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

In my reading, this is way far afield from the point I was trying to make. Forgive me if I wasn't clear.

The "let's compare," was trying to draw out what I see as the horribly offensive notion that the sexual abuse of boys is somehow concomitant with "reduced programs" or "increased registration fees." I may misstate, but I don't think so. Someone says they are going to be "abused" by BSA paying sexual abuse victims. It is the wrong way to "pay" for someone else's sexual abuse by a long gone volunteer who worked for/with the organization into which he pays dues and within which his programs are reduced. I'm asking for a comparison of damages and impact. I think that's more than fair. The exercise if a trick and a futility. There is no way to compare them.

Am I asking for a "tap out" or "I yield and agree with your point?" Absolutely I am. As has been said, no one is being forced to associate with an organization that, by its own implicit admission, has overseen the abuse of boys. 8, 80, 800, 8,000 or 84,000. Increased dues and reduced programs are not some random, indiscriminate or mandatory tax that cannot be legally evaded. There is a way out of feeling the "abusive" impact on the volunteers within the organization being held accountable. Yes, volunteers and donors have been and will be impacted. That impact pales in comparison to what was heaped on sexual abuse victims. Some believe and repeat "there are two wrongs" here and that doesn't make things "right." I say, there is one evil assault resulting in vicious injustice and tragedy, and one unfortunate and uncomfortable inconvenience. 

Well said. I'm not sure where I stand with putting some burden of the compensation on everyone for the bad acting of a very few.  That is a worthy discussion. But, the risk is that the inconvenience is the total loss of the BSA. I think it reflects the unfairness of the situation.

Barry

[Eagledad]

49 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

In all 84,000 cases? Can't for all 84,000. That's what the judge (well, more likely the Settlement Claims Trustee) will decide on a case by case basis.

In the cases already filed and that BSA lost? Sure. Courts have already found BSA liable, most famously in the Oregon case.

Jury verdict hits Boy Scouts with $18.5 million in punitive damages

BSA is going to pay. The only question is how much, and when.

Again, no one is talking about "killing" BSA other than Kosnoff. Nice straw-man.

But a "noble organization" that let 84,000 children be sexually abused maybe isn't so noble.

A "noble organization" who we now know KEPT THE ABUSE SECRET and directed people to remain silent maybe isn't so noble.

We have BSA executives admitting IN WRITING as early as 1965 that they kept the abuse secret "to save the name of Scouting."

That's a "noble" organization? Really?

EDIT: How about this from 1972?

There's that "noble" organization.

Your basic reasoning all along has been the numbers. Many of us were personally solicited (pushed) by law firms to join the law suit. When everyone is asked to join, the numbers become meaningless against my experience.

Barry