Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, skeptic said:

Cute; but it really dodges the question.  The issue with BSA is far larger than just the BSA.  It is a massive problem in most youth serving groups, and even more so in the governmental oversight agencies.  That is to what I refer.  

Thanks. I thought it most clever, indeed.

It doesn’t dodge it at all. Not in the least. This is not a philosophical or theological conversation. Foundationally, yes, but practically and logistically that wrangle is completely meaningless without strategic and tactical implementation. I think, and it’s only my perspective but you have reinforced my view many times, you just hate the idea of the BSA being the first to get the proverbial bite. Do you start solving for and curing a disease by treating every carrier simultaneously? Something goes under the microscope. As for me and my house, I vote for the Boy Scouts of America. And so say we all. 

[yknot]

8 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Cute; but it really dodges the question.  The issue with BSA is far larger than just the BSA.  It is a massive problem in most youth serving groups, and even more so in the governmental oversight agencies.  That is to what I refer.  

It is a societal problem. Trying to deflect and exonerate yourself by pointing that out, however, isn't at all useful. BSA is the organization that has been identified in lawsuits as having a significant issue. BSA has to do and be better. Simply doing a better job of living up to its own advertised and aggressively promoted oaths and laws would be a start. BSA has access to decades of its own internal data that it could be using to produce incident reports that could inform leaders when, why, where, and how incidents of CSA are occurring. There is no transparency however. And regardless of what you want to argue about where else CSA occurs, the reality is that it is BSA that has the public perception problem. As long as egregious cases like the one this month in Missouri keep occuring, BSA is going to have an issue. Being angry that others are "getting away with it" because they are not BSA doesn't serve any purpose.  

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, yknot said:

BSA has access to decades of its own internal data that it could be using to produce incident reports that could inform leaders when, why, where, and how incidents of CSA are occurring. There is no transparency however.

You beat me to it. I was in the middle of editing my post to add:

PS - I look at it as a certified audit. “Here. Come on it. We have nothing to hide. Please poke around and let us know what you find. We are an open book.” And, yes, I welcome that in my life. Good, bad and ugly. Will those disclosures and findings be the undoing? I don’t know. Would inviting the risk to find out be the Scout-like, “trustworthy, loyal, helpful...” and honorable thing to do. Without question.

Edited July 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I have Kosnoff.  He’s been more representative than Eisenberg, but is more or less making the big decisions.  I have had pretty much zero contact with Eisenberg.  Mostly I’ve spoken to my attorneys in ZS and Kosnoff.

Thanks for telling us. So, you’re able to speak with him directly? That’s great compared to some of the other reports we’ve heard. If it’s okay, and you may have said this, were you connected to him via the ad campaign? 

[skeptic]

22 minutes ago, yknot said:

It is a societal problem. Trying to deflect and exonerate yourself by pointing that out, however, isn't at all useful. BSA is the organization that has been identified in lawsuits as having a significant issue. BSA has to do and be better. Simply doing a better job of living up to its own advertised and aggressively promoted oaths and laws would be a start. BSA has access to decades of its own internal data that it could be using to produce incident reports that could inform leaders when, why, where, and how incidents of CSA are occurring. There is no transparency however. And regardless of what you want to argue about where else CSA occurs, the reality is that it is BSA that has the public perception problem. As long as egregious cases like the one this month in Missouri keep occuring, BSA is going to have an issue. Being angry that others are "getting away with it" because they are not BSA doesn't serve any purpose.  

All I am asking is that they go beyond the witch hunt with BSA and take other bites of the elephant.  Expand the focus to include other agencies and publicly drag them into view.  I realize this discussion is on the BSA, but the point is that it should not simply be on BSA, but should be clearly reaching far beyond them, as it is not JUST a BSA issue, but a real societal issue that dwarfs the localized drama.  And, with that, I bow out again, for a bit, at least.

 

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Judge: Yes, this was focused on Kosnoff/AIS, not the Coalition.

Judge: Mr. Kosnoff "has now involved himself in this case through AIS and through the letters filed in this court and is now subject to 2019." "We need to know who represents these parties."

Wilks trying to clean this up. He's failing.

I can barely remember the year and know little to nothing about 2019 disclosures, so back to the judge’s punchline. Why did they fight this so hard? What, prey tell, might be behind curtain number three where Carol Merrill is standing? Inquiring minds want to know. What are they afraid of, if one can speculate? As for me, I’m afraid the info will be sealed and I’ll be left on the cliff just dangling here. 

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Why did they fight this so hard?...What are they afraid of, if one can speculate? As for me, I’m afraid the info will be sealed and I’ll be left on the cliff just dangling here. 

Few possibilities:

1) Kosnoff is not as all powerful as he lets on and Eisenberg and AVA are really driving the bus.

2) Kosnoff is just obstinate and would rather be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything he doesn't want to do. That's why my guess in that the Rule 2019 disclosure will be minimally informative (if even that much) and result in a motion to compel further disclosure.

As a reminder to all: the Coalition did the same thing. Their initial Rule 2019 statement was sparse (at best) and it wasn't until months of litigation and hearing before the judge that the Coalition released more info.

Coalition's Rule 2019 disclosure (July 2020) was a mere 3 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/836358_1053.pdf

It's Amended Disclosure (August 2020) was up to 4 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/840142_1106.pdf

That's when other parties (in particular the insurance companies) began filing demands for the Coalition to release more information. Even the U.S. Trustee and the TCC came in and said the Coalition had to do better than that.

By October and a court hearing the Coalition filed its Second Amended Disclosure this time coming it at over 125 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf

And the court accepted it https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853836_1435.pdf

Edited July 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As a reminder to all: the Coalition did the same thing. Their initial Rule 2019 statement was sparse (at best) and it wasn't until months of litigation and hearing before the judge that the Coalition released more info.

Coalition's Rule 2019 disclosure (July 2020) was a mere 3 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/836358_1053.pdf

It's Amended Disclosure (August 2020) was up to 4 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/840142_1106.pdf

That's when other parties (in particular the insurance companies) began filing demands for the Coalition to release more information. Even the U.S. Trustee and the TCC came in and said the Coalition had to do better than that.

By October and a court hearing the Coalition filed its Second Amended Disclosure this time coming it at over 125 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf

Thanks. But why drag it out like that? What was gained if they would inevitably be forced to make disclosures? Well, even if it wasn’t inevitable. This is the stuff that makes the case look even more terrible than it is. These are attorneys for the victims for gosh sakes. Why in the world should they need to hide anything if they’re on the up and up? It may be totally misplaced, but it baffles and disgusts me. Lots of disgust to go around of late.

Edited July 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

What was gained if they would inevitably be forced to make disclosures. Well, even if it wasn’t inevitable.

They argued two things: to keep confidential the list of abuse survivors and the professional engagement letters and instruments purporting to evidence the Coalition’s authority to act on behalf of its members. The thinking was listing all clients on a court website would expose/revictimize victims (they did agree to name 6 victims who were serving at the Coalition's advisory board). Moreover, they worried the insurance companies would start to investigate some of these claimants.

Ok, said everyone else. But there's ways to work around the confidentiality issue, and there sure as heck no reason NOT to disclose your professional services letters.

The ultimate resolution was:

1) The list of all victims the Coalition was representing was filed under seal. The court can see them. Attorneys for the parties can see the list (subject to the seal order). No one else; if you go to that document you simply see

Quote

EXHIBIT A-1
Sexual Abuse Survivor Personally Identifiable Information
(Filed Under Seal)

2) The professional services and engagement letters had to be filed. Since these were law firms agreeing to hire Blank Rome and work together amongst themselves, there's no victims names, no confidential info, but you can see who agreed to what and at what price, etc.

Edited July 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[yknot]

40 minutes ago, skeptic said:

All I am asking is that they go beyond the witch hunt with BSA and take other bites of the elephant.  Expand the focus to include other agencies and publicly drag them into view.  I realize this discussion is on the BSA, but the point is that it should not simply be on BSA, but should be clearly reaching far beyond them, as it is not JUST a BSA issue, but a real societal issue that dwarfs the localized drama.  And, with that, I bow out again, for a bit, at least.

 

One positive result that could come out of the BSA bankruptcy is if it sparks a broader conversation on CSA in society. There are scattered CSA statistics and studies but they compare apples to rocks to feathers.  It's hard to draw conclusions about what kinds of settings are most risky and what prevention works other than under the broadest of generalities.  I think that might come, but it would be more likely after the BSA process, not as part of it. 

[Eagle1970]

Just heard this on the news.  JUST LAST WEEK!!!  50+ years after my abuse at this Scout Camp, it is still occurring.  While details are lacking, there are both sexual abuse and hidden cameras involved.  It was a troop counselor, not an employee.  One of the smartest things I have ever done was prohibiting my children from being scouts.  I am speechless.

The report states that a review of the cameras’ recorded footage showed numerous individuals in the state of both dress and undress while some performed sexual acts. Five juveniles and one adult were identified and three juvenile males have yet to be identified.

Scout chaperone charged after cameras found in S Bar F Scout Ranch shower rooms | Crime and Courts | dailyjournalonline.com

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, yknot said:

One positive result that could come out of the BSA bankruptcy is if it sparks a broader conversation on CSA in society. There are scattered CSA statistics and studies but they compare apples to rocks to feathers.  It's hard to draw conclusions about what kinds of settings are most risky and what prevention works other than under the broadest of generalities.  I think that might come, but it would be more likely after the BSA process, not as part of it. 

Related to this, I’ve been wondering if a collaborative effort could be forged between CHILDUSA and BSA survivors coming out of this process. We have “representatives” in every state and territory, and then, scattered throughout each. We would create a powerful voice and contingent that would be hard to ignore. That effort would likely draw out others to become faces and voices, as well. I don’t mean as a banner of BSA BAD, rather to bring the issue forward in a way that doesn’t turn on one case, one organization or one celebrity’s story. I’ve often wondered why issues like CSA and child exploitation, generally, don’t have more publicly known champions. On this subject, I only know of Marci Hamilton, as I lightning rod on the NGO side, and Tim Kosnoff on the legal. Jeff Anderson has done a lot too, I guess, as have some of the other attorneys whose names escape me at the moment. I know. The Red Beret Brigade. Oh, wait. Guardian Angles got that. Never mind...

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

50+ years after my abuse at this Scout Camp, it is still occurring.  While details are lacking, there are both sexual abuse and hidden cameras involved.  It was a troop counselor, not an employee.  One of the smartest things I have ever done was prohibiting my children from being scouts.  I am speechless.

There is only so much head shaking I can do before my brains dribble out my ears. Yeah. Awful and so gruesomely poignant for you. I am truly sorry. I shared the previously posted news clip with friends and family last night. I didn’t see the details and had no idea of the connection to you, of course. Good grief.  I’ll join you in the “no words” ante room.

[Eagle1970]

Now I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes, not for myself, but for the realization that boys have certainly continued to be abused at the same camp for all of these years.  I join those who say it is a societal problem.  But if children cannot be protected, and they clearly cannot, then there is no place for them to attend events such as camp.  There will always be an abuser and always be a hidden spot for them to prey on the kids.  Clearly, this camp still does not provide adequate protection for the attendees.  

Regardless of my personal feelings regarding the future of scouting, just how in the hell can the scouts ever continue with these events occurring.  The PR will cause parents to reconsider membership (I would hope) and the new round of lawsuits awaiting, with no SoL, will handcuff any future efforts.  This case alone, though it occurred during bankruptcy, would be a blank check for a sympathetic jury.

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Now I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes, not for myself, but for the realization that boys have certainly continued to be abused at the same camp for all of these years.

I’m with ya.

12 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

There will always be an abuser and always be a hidden spot for them to prey on the kids. 

2 Deep and YPT don’t require someone to tail a “chaperone” while he sets up cameras. Back to those devious, evil people. Did he plan or orchestrate the sexual activities and physical abuse, too? Where does this go? Ack.

14 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

The PR will cause parents to reconsider membership

I’m incredibly curious how stuff like this lands on the ears, minds and heart of Scouting parents, present and near future. Is it mentioned or considered? Discussed? Or, it’s a matter of, “Wow, but NO WAY that would EVER happen at OUR camp...”?