Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[yknot]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

There is also the future claimants group.  People who didn’t sue, perhaps too young or other reasons.  But it is a good point that a much higher percentage of claimants have filed in the BSA case up front than those other examples.  

How was the higher percentage of claimants filing in the BSA case over the others been determined? My thinking was that it was likely low due to the fact that many potential claimants are already dead, many abused children don't come forward until well into adulthood, and the fact that there is an inhibiting stigma attached to actually filing for a child sex abuse claim that could become public, or at least would become known in an attorney's office. 

[Eagle1993]

7 minutes ago, yknot said:

How was the higher percentage of claimants filing in the BSA case over the others been determined? My thinking was that it was likely low due to the fact that many potential claimants are already dead, many abused children don't come forward until well into adulthood, and the fact that there is an inhibiting stigma attached to actually filing for a child sex abuse claim that could become public, or at least would become known in an attorney's office. 

I think this is more about comparing total final number of claims vs current number of claims.  There are already 84,000 claims in BSA.  While I wouldn't be surprised more would come, I can't imagine a huge increase in the next 20 years (remember, it would have to be claims from 2020 and earlier).

In the asbestos case, they are expecting a total of 77,000 claims and 34,000 have been filed after 20 years ...

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

The insurance companies fought hard with the asbestos case ... from what I can see, 7+ years post plan approval. 

That is a knife twister of a thought. Ack! And, double Ack!

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/12/2021 at 5:47 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Got blast email from my council.

not 

"A non-binding letter of intent."  And just to what purpose is that?  Meaning something like "we've reviewed it, not screaming yet, just might do it, but we want to see more?"
 

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/10/2021 at 2:01 PM, PACAN said:

So when do we see Exhibit C...LC contributions?

After 8 or 10 hours of research the other day, (read most of the 3rd amended plan and the critical parts of 4th amended plan and other stuff, including this forum) I told a friend that the ONLY number of importance was the LC contribution our council.

And that was not available.

Which raises the question why are those numbers not of record?  National's determination of the amount each council should donate is not dependent on the LC's agreement to pay it, yet they are not available..

This entire process is a master case of selective revealment. "Just what we want to show, just when we want to show it."  Just-in-time data delivery.

And so I sense the Judas Goat is at the head of this line.

[T2Eagle]

9 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Which raises the question why are those numbers not of record?  National's determination of the amount each council should donate is not dependent on the LC's agreement to pay it, yet they are not available..

 

My understanding is that National may have specified a number, but that isn't necessarily a take it or leave it number.  There's certainly at least some negotiation, because if one LC opts out, the rest of the LCs have to make up the number to get to the promised $600 million.  Plus, just in the vagaries of how much a camp or other property is worth there is going to be some movement before it's all settled.  

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/8/2021 at 1:25 PM, elitts said:

 

 

 

Just to make it official, ThenNow correctly related the current policy on the discussion of lawyers within this (and related) threads.  Generalized discussion about lawyers and their motivations is not acceptable; but specific discussion about any attorney involved in the case and actions they've taken or statements they've made are fair game.

This post is of particular interest.

I can understand the prohibition on making general derogatory comments about lawyers generally, so as to discourage the proliferation of meaningless posts ranting and raving against lawyers.

Permitting specific comments about the motivations of specific attorneys, well, that seems to be another matter, as derogatory comments, proven to be untrue, would be libel, would they not?  Why would anyone want to tread that shaky ground especially with respect to attorneys whose daily life is litigation? "Neither a libelor nor a defendant be." (I believe a quote from Al Franklin, brother of Ben.)

So at the risk of offending the forum rules, and if so, moderators wield the ax, though believing to be within the parameters of ThenNow, attorneys who practice this manner of law:

(Content deleted without prejudice as not allowable under thread rules)

 

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by elitts
disallowed commentary for this thread.

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/8/2021 at 11:25 AM, fred8033 said:

Recognize that this set of threads and posts are highly one sided. 

• One person's "conceal" is another person's view that BSA did far more than other organizations.  BSA had an exclusion system in place to try to block volunteers before background checks, before computer systems, before the current understanding of CSA and before the current laws existed.
• Strongly debatable whether abuse happened at higher levels than other programs or rest of society.  I know of no cases directly in scouting, but know of multiple cases / incidents in our local music programs, school programs, sports, church, etc.  Over the last 100 years, BSA has easily had 100+ million scouts.  When divided by math and incident rates in other programs, I question whether BSA is different enough to be uniquely called out.  
• BSA could not have "concealed" cases on their own.  Many cases had COs and other groups.  When I read the files, you will often find police reports and other records.  

Demonizing BSA over this is not as clear cut.  Yes, BSA could have done more, but society as a whole failed and did not understand CSA well until the last twenty years.  

Just caught this on a re-read of posts and should respond..

I truly recognize that these posts are "highly one-sided."  My take is lightly one-sided.  Mostly, they are extraordinarily polite and balanced and not one has given me pause to consider the poster as ranting or raving. (I guess "flaming" is the web term. but I am pretty old school, feeling myself pretty successful in get a few posts sent up successfully on this site.)

I have read many files posted on account of the Oregon Case.  they are replete with newspaper clippings of criminal cases, letters from Council Executives, and council volunteers to National, and letters from National to the Council.

That all being said, my experience in my council tells me that the council follows the lead of National. A council executive is NOT making policy contrary to National's policy, particularly with respect to an issue of national significance. Council policy, in my opinion, was policy directed by National.

"Demonizing the BSA is not clear-cut."

I agree.

The Oregon case produced "perversion files" show many communications between councils and national.  They were trying to manage an embarrassing and difficult problem for the times .  The files I have read, largely dealing with my council were at a time when social norms were different. Not to say this diminishes the damage done to innocent children, but how adults tried to deal with it.  I know many of the adults mentioned in the perversion files (not offenders but scouters responding to allegations).

In defense of the BSA.  

An allegation of abuse against an adult is a very serious matter. Under the American system everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  We all know this and grade school children repeat nearly as a rhyme.  

But "nearly as a rhyme" does not diminish its significance in our legal significance.

Many times in legal analysis it is of value to discuss the opposite.

"EVERYONE IS PRESUMED GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT."

Well, you might think that this simplifies everything.  Well, sort of, but a crime was just committed in New Orleans, and under the "presumed guilty" proposition above, YOU, sitting in Oregon, or New Mexico, or Maine, are presumed guilty until you prove your innocence.

And is this presumption workable?

No.

So, a complaint is filed with a council executive of alleged abuse against scouter X.  What is a council to do?  That is the question to the council executive.

Social workers tend to attribute credibility to abuse  claims if the abused describes activities that a child of that age is unlikely (or never) to be able to describe unless is happened. ("I couldn't know to tell you unless it happened, and since I am telling you about it you must know that it happened.")

That is pretty persuasive.

So, the Council has an alleged abuser, probably married, probably with children, and likely employed.

A public charge by the council might cost the alleged abuser his job (seems mostly males are alleged).

And, what if the alleged abused loses his job, pension benefits, etc. over the allegations?

And then the allegations are unsubstantiated?

A career destroyed, a family disrupted or destroyed.

We sit in a marginally enlightened time.

Now, in retrospect, we have many advantages to evaluate this history.

I know two very close friends who only recently disclosed to me their abuse or near abuse.  One I have known for over 50 years and only learned about 4 years ago.

Not sure I responded to all your comments.  If I missed anything and you'd like my further comment on, let me know.

Thanks.

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/11/2021 at 7:36 AM, ThenNow said:

Thanks for your post. I’m sorry my question was misinterpreted. All I meant was if he had unpacked the statement that Scouting saved his life, even in the midst of the abuse.

Well, I thought your post sought insight into his resort to safety into the BSA program to perhaps give insight into your situation.

And as I work through the timeline of his life relative to mine, I may have been his only friend of any significance during all that time. And so little did I know that was the case.

I am so new to this forum that I have not had a chance to work backward into prior comments, nor your specific history, though I shall do so.

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Just caught this on a re-read of posts and should respond..

I truly recognize that these posts are "highly one-sided."  My take is lightly one-sided.  Mostly, they are extraordinarily polite and balanced and not one has given me pause to consider the poster as ranting or raving. (I guess "flaming" is the web term. but I am pretty old school, feeling myself pretty successful in get a few posts sent up successfully on this site.)

I have read many files posted on account of the Oregon Case.  they are replete with newspaper clippings of criminal cases, letters from Council Executives, and council volunteers to National, and letters from National to the Council.

That all being said, my experience in my council tells me that the council follows the lead of National. A council executive is NOT making policy contrary to National's policy, particularly with respect to an issue of national significance. Council policy, in my opinion, was policy directed by National.

"Demonizing the BSA is not clear-cut."

I agree.

The Oregon case produced "perversion files" show many communications between councils and national.  They were trying to manage an embarrassing and difficult problem for the times .  The files I have read, largely dealing with my council were at a time when social norms were different. Not to say this diminishes the damage done to innocent children, but how adults tried to deal with it.  I know many of the adults mentioned in the perversion files (not offenders but scouters responding to allegations).

In defense of the BSA.  

An allegation of abuse against an adult is a very serious matter. Under the American system everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  We all know this and grade school children repeat nearly as a rhyme.  

But "nearly as a rhyme" does not diminish its significance in our legal significance.

Many times in legal analysis it is of value to discuss the opposite.

"EVERYONE IS PRESUMED GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT."

Well, you might think that this simplifies everything.  Well, sort of, but a crime was just committed in New Orleans, and under the "presumed guilty" proposition above, YOU, sitting in Oregon, or New Mexico, or Maine, are presumed guilty until you prove your innocence.

And is this presumption workable?

No.

So, a complaint is filed with a council executive of alleged abuse against scouter X.  What is a council to do?  That is the question to the council executive.

Social workers tend to attribute credibility to abuse  claims if the abused describes activities that a child of that age is unlikely (or never) to be able to describe unless is happened. ("I couldn't know to tell you unless it happened, and since I am telling you about it you must know that it happened.")

That is pretty persuasive.

So, the Council has an alleged abuser, probably married, probably with children, and likely employed.

A public charge by the council might cost the alleged abuser his job (seems mostly males are alleged).

And, what if the alleged abused loses his job, pension benefits, etc. over the allegations?

And then the allegations are unsubstantiated?

A career destroyed, a family disrupted or destroyed.

We sit in a marginally enlightened time.

Now, in retrospect, we have many advantages to evaluate this history.

I know two very close friends who only recently disclosed to me their abuse or near abuse.  One I have known for over 50 years and only learned about 4 years ago.

Not sure I responded to all your comments.  If I missed anything and you'd like my further comment on, let me know.

Thanks.

Well said.  Many of your comments hit home. 

(deleted rest of my post ...  it was nothing new)

Edited July 15, 2021 by fred8033

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I have not had a chance to work backward into prior comments, nor your specific history, though I shall do so.

Don’t feel compelled, but if you do, you’ll be forced to edit your comment that nothing you’ve read qualifies as ranting.  

[CynicalScouter]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

"A non-binding letter of intent."  And just to what purpose is that?  Meaning something like "we've reviewed it, not screaming yet, just might do it, but we want to see more?"
 

Close. My understanding (spoke with people from my council and my next door neighbor council last night) is that these votes are not going well for BSA.

1) Non-binding letter of intent: lots of councils dong this. In short, they are only promising to pay out if and only if the plan is ultimately approved by the claimants and the court.

2) Councils putting in conditions: there have been councils that have put conditions on payment. Some wanted to try and put assurances their payments would only go to pay claims arising from their council. There is a big worry some councils will be bailing out other councils. This is apparently a sticking point.

[ThenNow]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Permitting specific comments about the motivations of specific attorneys, well, that seems to be another matter, as derogatory comments, proven to be untrue, would be libel, would they not?  Why would anyone want to tread that shaky ground especially with respect to attorneys whose daily life is litigation? "Neither a libelor nor a defendant be."

Yeah, but no. Derogatory does not equal "a false statement purporting to be fact." Opinion doesn't rise to the level of defamatory. As to making their living/money by litigating, the last gnat "they" want to pursue is someone on this forum ranting and raving about how bad they are, in whatever respect. Even if it was a false statement, there has to be injury. I don't think anyone, especially a well-compensated personal injury attorney, is trolling this pond for a potential libel action. It may be well stocked, but not many keepers, me thinks. If they put themselves into the line of fire for criticism as to the BSA Chapter 11, they are fair game for examination and, potentially, derogative commentary. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by ThenNow

[elitts]

14 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

This post is of particular interest.

I can understand the prohibition on making general derogatory comments about lawyers generally, so as to discourage the proliferation of meaningless posts ranting and raving against lawyers.

Permitting specific comments about the motivations of specific attorneys, well, that seems to be another matter, as derogatory comments, proven to be untrue, would be libel, would they not?  Why would anyone want to tread that shaky ground especially with respect to attorneys whose daily life is litigation? "Neither a libelor nor a defendant be." (I believe a quote from Al Franklin, brother of Ben.)

So at the risk of offending the forum rules, and if so, moderators wield the ax, though believing to be within the parameters of ThenNow, attorneys who practice this manner of law:

The issue with generalized discussion of attorneys in this thread revolves entirely around avoiding flaring tempers and hijacking of the thread, not protecting the reputation/honor of the field.  Discussion of specific attorneys and their actions is permitted because some of the attorneys in this case are operating well beyond the standard role being a court representative/advocate for a client and so their actions may have a bearing on how things shake out.  Whether or not someone says something that could be considered libelous isn't really a concern.

That said, I have deleted your more generic comments regarding mass tort legal practices even though you weren't trying to be antagonistic, both because I've been trying to be even-handed about deletions (regardless of apparent motivation) and because all of the points you made have been well hashed out and I don't want to re-open the issue.

Edited July 15, 2021 by elitts

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Councils putting in conditions: there have been councils that have put conditions on payment. Some wanted to try and put assurances their payments would only go to pay claims arising from their council. There is a big worry some councils will be bailing out other councils. This is apparently a sticking point.

Because it's particularly near and dear to my heart, er case, I am wondering how the 3 Shades of Gray councils are processing the demands set before them. When we were all young, spry and hopeful, we speculated about the, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances," responses that could be down the road. Well, here we be in the cul-de-sac. Is it just me or does it kinda feel a bit like the OK Coral? I'm trying to figure out who are the Brothers Earp, the legendary Doctor and the notorious Cowboys. I'm hiding under the front decking of the general store across the way. Wave one of those red bandanas the Cowboys wear to signal the all clear. Then we can saunter, gather, gander and perform a proper "crime scene" analysis.