Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[skeptic]

22 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

For some strange reason, the BSA continues to enjoy a high level of deference.  (Maybe it will all work out OK.)  My best guess.

 

(OK in the sense of "good news to report" as measured by the media.  I doubt that any resolution will be seen as good news by the survivors.)

However, on that note, would any survivor care to express their hopes for this procedure?

Maybe it has a lot to do with the actual scouting that is the norm, not the deviant outliers.  Scouts do public patriotic ceremonies in many places; Scouts contribute thousands of hours of community service outside of the Eagle projects; Scouts are often called upon by the wider community for assistance in special events; Scouts and Scouting in 99+% of community visibility is a positive and worthwhile example.  Maybe there are more people that understand the the anomalous hyper scandal is NOT the norm for the larger group, and understand that it is far more beneficial to their communities than detrimental.  Many people can look at the wider view and see that the deviations are not the norm.  Just suggesting.

[Eagle94-A1]

@Sentinel947,

I pointed out another case with someone using the same methods to show this is not just a BSA problem,  but a societal one.

[MikeS72]

11 hours ago, ThenNow said:

There are, as is obvious, two systems. Right? One before and one after. I would argue, there must be three. The YPT part, the criminal investigation and the BSA investigation and reporting part. In this abuse context, #2 seems to have been engaged. We don’t know if it can be said to have “worked” until further down the road. 

In addition to the failure of #1, I’m keen to learn what happens with #3 Or not. How deeply into the backstory of the “means and opportunity” of this abuse will the examination delve, not just by law enforcement? What of all the ancillary human factors that made it possible? Did he know there would be sexual activities, apparently including CSA, going on where he set up his camera? Pretty coincidental. Were there others who were secondarily or primarily involved in means, opportunity and/or perpetration? Did they collaborate? Were kids encouraged or dared to have sex in there? It definitely happens. If so, who said what to whom? If this was a known spot, was it historic? Single incident? This sort of secret knowledge can be passed down from year to year. It’s not uncommon. Having ALL of this information is what can save children this horror going forward. Not, “Whew! We caught him. Thank God that’s over.”

I would agree with you that there should be (and in this climate, likely are) three componnents in play here.  I am not sure we will be privy to the results of the Council's investigation, which is why I support the idea brought up here several times, by several people, of a public reporting system any time there is an incident, not just of abuse, but any serious safety violations.  Those reports could go a long way toward helping other Councils in preventing similar incidents from happening.

Short of either posting round the clock guards at all shower facilities, or requiring the 'buddy system' not only for Scouts but also for adults, I do not see how this particular incident could have been prevented, as even with a buddy system for adults it would have been as simple as waiting until the middle of the night to leave the campsite and set up cameras.  I looked at the leader gude for this camp, and based on that I saw 3 shower facilites; one for Scouts, one for adults, and one dual use.    No pictures that I could find of those shower houses, but if they are anything like every other camp I have been to in recent years, they probably have individual rooms with locking doors.  If that is the case, I do not see how anyone would have known what he was doing when installing cameras.  My questions as far as a potential YPT failure would be two fold.  One, was he registered; and two, were there any indications at all, even if just inuendo, that he might be likely to offend.

As to many of your questions in paragraph two, it seems to be very early in the investigation right now, but hopefully all of those questions will be answered.  From the articles I have read, I do not see anything indicating that anyone else was involved, however, we would have to wait and see if that is true.

As for "Not, “Whew! We caught him. Thank God that’s over.”; this is the main reason that I read every post in this thread, but rarely respond to any of them.  It is too easy to misinterpret things in an online forum.  My feelings on this would be more "We caught him, I hope he is convicted (kind of hard not to be with him appearing on video) and is given the maximum possible sentence."  Now let's see what needs to be changed to reduce the chance of something similar occuring again.

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

My feelings on this would be more "We caught him, I hope he is convicted (kind of hard not to be with him appearing on video) and is given the maximum possible sentence."  Now let's see what needs to be changed to reduce the chance of something similar occuring again.

You made some great points and I appreciate the thought you put into it. Thanks for the info on the layout and composition of the facilities. If, as you think may be the case, these were single rooms, capturing that amount of activity on a single camera still seems suspicious. I think there is more to the story.

So, I assume any post mortem assessment to help reduce a repeat performance happens at the camp level? The LC? Who would be doing the review and who will receive the benefit of the “report,” though I’ve heard no one say there are any such documents? Has anyone ever looked at the impact of CSA accusations, maybe even specifically convictions, on Troops, LCs and camps. In the Case of Camp S Bar F Ranch, David Lee Nelson was convicted of XYZ for acts committed in July of 2021. Camp attendance for that year was #__. Following the incident, #__ parents withdrew their registered Cubs from Cub Days. The victims sued the Ranch, Scouters, the LC...and the case settled out of court. Camp registrations for the following year were down by 28%, and etc. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by ThenNow

[MikeS72]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

You made some great points and I appreciate the thought you put into it. Thanks for the info on the layout and composition of the facilities. If, as you think may be the case, these were single rooms, capturing that amount of activity on a single camera still seems suspicious. I think there is more to the story.

So, I assume any post mortem assessment to help reduce a repeat performance happens at the camp level? The LC? Who would be doing the review and who will received the benefit of the “report,” though I’ve heard no one say there are any such? Has anyone ever looked at the impact of CSA accusations, maybe even specifically convictions, on Troops, LCs and camps. In the Case of Camp S Bar F Ranch, David Lee Nelson was convicted of XYZ for acts committed in July of 2021. Camp attendance for that year was #__. Following the incident, #__ parents withdrew their registered Cubs from Cub Days. The victims sued the Ranch, Scouters, the LC...and the case settled out of court. Camp registrations for the following year were down by 28%, and etc. 

My first impression would be that his capturing the 3 boys ingaged in some kind of sexual activity may have just been coincidental.  The camp website stated that they serve in excess of 6,000 Scouts every summer.  Hard to believe that out of that many Scouts, nothing inappropriate would happen between a few of them.  If, however, he did have something to do with them being in the shower room together, I would hope that would be a factor in as harsh a sentence as possible.

As for assessments, I would think that would be primarily the responsibiltiy of the local Council, although I would love to see a task force on either the National or Territory level that could come in and look at things with an outsider point of view.  Ideally, that would be made up of outside experts in the field, rather than BSA personnel.  I am not sure if we would ever get as detailed an assessment of the effects as you mention, but as a long time Scouter I would applaud any Council who had the intestinal fortitude to release than information.

 

[CynicalScouter]

Reuters take on yesterday's hearing

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-victims-lawyer-group-must-disclose-makeup-judge-rules-2021-07-29/

Quote

Wilks also argued that Abused in Scouting does not have a common set of interests in part because the three law firms involved have contrary views on how to proceed in the bankruptcy.

Silverstein rejected that position, saying that even if Abused in Scouting is a “dysfunctional group,” it’s still a group with a common goal of pursuing abuse survivors’ interests. She noted that Abused in Scouting has encouraged survivors to send to the court letters sharing their personal stories.

“[Abused in Scouting] does not get to hide behind these abuse victims,” she said.

Kosnoff says he's ready to disclose.

And I again come back to my own theory: The Rule 2019 Kosnoff/Kosnoff Law/AIS is going file to be minimally informative if that much and we'll be right back before the judge in 1-2 months for another fight on this.

I could be wrong, but given Kosnoff's track record and obstinance, I would bet against full and complete compliance with the judge's order the first time.

Edited July 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Sentinel947]

12 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

@Sentinel947,

I pointed out another case with someone using the same methods to show this is not just a BSA problem,  but a societal one.

I misread, a consistent issue for me. It's not outlandish to suggest this isn't the first time this particular individual may have done this sort of thing, but no evidence provided by the article. 

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

I misread

Okay. Whew. I can remove my scalp from close proximity to the Sterno canister. My neck was getting a serious kink.

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

As for "Not, “Whew! We caught him. Thank God that’s over.”; this is the main reason that I read every post in this thread, but rarely respond to any of them.  It is too easy to misinterpret things in an online forum.  My feelings on this would be more "We caught him, I hope he is convicted (kind of hard not to be with him appearing on video) and is given the maximum possible sentence."  Now let's see what needs to be changed to reduce the chance of something similar occuring again.

Sorry. Were you saying I misinterpreted the context or attitude in this case? What you said is precisely my (intended) point. Let’s do the former thorough processes, in the moment and going forward, and not the later, “done and gone so let’s move on.” I think it can be self-protective human nature to do that with ugly, distasteful stuff especially if doing otherwise avoids putting in jeopardy something we love. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by ThenNow

[MikeS72]

56 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Sorry. Were you saying I misinterpreted the context or attitude in this case? What you said is precisely my (intended) point. Let’s do the former thorough processes, in the moment and going forward, and not the later, “done and gone so let’s move on.” I think it can be self-protective human nature to do that with ugly, distasteful stuff especially if doing so avoids putting in jeopardy something we love. 

I think we are in agreement that "done and gone so let's move on" is the wrong way to deal with this issue, and all others like it.  My point was simply that in this specific case, part 2 of the process you described has worked so far, in that he was caught, arrested, charged, and with the court setting a $500,00 cash only bail, will be incarcerated for a deservedly long, long, long time.  Now comes the 'how did this happen, and were there any warning signs that were not heeded / were there any YPT policies that were ignored by either his troop, local council, or the camp'; and if so, how do we reinforce them so that it makes a repeat there or anywhere else less likely.

[AnonEagle]

Since AIS is currently being discussed I just wanna throw in my personal experiences.

 

1) I think I got 2 seperate case numbers. 1 for AVA and one from AIS  (I had a one time abuse incident at a camp so Don't think I should have 2 case numbers). I signed up through AIS and it is a bearded guy that I see in the update videos.  I have no idea if this is just me not understanding what I received in the early days of the lawsuit or if the AIS numbers could possibly be as much as double what it truly is. 

 

2 I sent a support email months ago when their was some searchable list by cases posted here and couldn't find mine and asked for clarification. Still haven't gotten any response back from that email.

Also it really left a sour taste in my mouth the way the guy that handled my case when I sent it to AIS kept talking to me super casually and using a lot of emojis when texting me. Came off really tone deaf to say the least.

 

Also when I made my statement over the phone and then written, I was told and reassured that I would not have to go through the process of telling the story of what happened to me again but it seems people on this thread think that it's a given that we will absolutely have to testify.

If it looks like that is the case then is it wise for those of us that were abused to participate in this thread or at least purge our comments when it gets closer to the final hours?

I can see them saying stuff like " well you seemed just as interested in talking about red vs green loops or your personal experiences during camp or some third off topic thing discussed" and then use the stuff we post here as a wedge to basically say " see they aren't doing so bad, why should we pay anything more than the minimum?".

 

At this point in the race I feel like I hitched my wagon to the wrong horse, or maybe that I should have never bothered leaving the stable.

 

 

[CynicalScouter]

21 minutes ago, AnonEagle said:

Also when I made my statement over the phone and then written, I was told and reassured that I would not have to go through the process of telling the story of what happened to me again but it seems people on this thread think that it's a given that we will absolutely have to testify.

If it looks like that is the case then is it wise for those of us that were abused to participate in this thread or at least purge our comments when it gets closer to the final hours?

I know you are not the first person to say this/repeat this, namely, that victims were told they would never have to tell their story except for that one time. Another version included that the victims would remain 100% anonymous to everyone.

That obviously isn't true UNLESS (and here's the unless) UNLESS you agree to take the $3500 "expedited" payout which, under the latest plan being discussed, relies entirely on that claim document you submitted. If you want ANY more recovery than that, then yes, at some point or another you MAY and likely WILL have to tell your story in more detail. Whether that is by a lawyer for the insurance companies, or a psychologist or lawyer for the settlement trustee, or both, is TBD.

This is NOT like some kind of typical class action for defective laptop batteries or body lotion where the settlement is for $10 in free body lotion or $50 towards a new laptop battery, few or no questions asked. This is literally billions upon billions of dollars. The problem is many of these claims aggregators were more familiar with the mass class action type things where in fact a bare, raw, proof of claim one time was all that was needed.

The insurance companies, against whom there is going to be potentially billions in payouts, have rights too, including the right before they start signing billions in checks to ask questions, depose witnesses, etc.

I'm not saying "pity the poor insurance companies" here, my sympathies always start with the victims. But no court, or settlement trustee, or such is simply going to tell a company based on a single proof of claim to start stroking checks beyond what is typically called "nuisance value": $10 coupon for body lotion, $50 for a new laptop battery, $3500 for the abuse claims.

As for purging from this thread, why? No one knows who you are, not even perhaps the mods know your real name. And nothing is ever truly "purged" on the internet anyway.

Edited July 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

We've got a new hearing date for the disclosure statement: August 25, objections by August 16. The judge obviously had to move somethings around to get BSA on the docket that quick.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e76188ad-f1fe-4110-a82f-c2c4a25eb4db_5833.pdf

This is my new Guestimated Timeline, based on the Fourth Amended Plan. Obviously there will be some shifts since some of these computed dates fall on Saturdays, but (again large and copious amounts of salt here, not just a grain) if BSA can move fast they can get out of bankruptcy by early November.

I still suspect it will get pushed in 2022 based on what I would imagine is going to be a 2 day knock down drag out fight over all of this. And remember: we can get all the way to a vote and the judge can veto at the confirmation hearing.

Event	Days from Disclosure Hearing	Guestimated Timeline
Disclosure Statement Objection Deadline	-9	Monday, August 16, 2021
Disclosure Statement Hearing	0	Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Voting Record Date	0	Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices	8	Thursday, September 2, 2021
Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline	24	Saturday, September 18, 2021
Deadline to File Plan Supplement	31	Saturday, September 25, 2021
Voting Resolution Event Deadline	45	Saturday, October 9, 2021
Voting Deadline	45	Saturday, October 9, 2021
Preliminary Voting Report Deadline	50	Thursday, October 14, 2021
Plan Objection Deadline	56	Wednesday, October 20, 2021
Final Voting Report Deadline	59	Saturday, October 23, 2021
Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline	64	Thursday, October 28, 2021
Confirmation Hearing	69	Tuesday, November 2, 2021

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[vol_scouter]

@CynicalScouter,

Would you mind educating the non-legal folks about Rules?  There are several of these rules being mentioned.  Is there a set of rules numbered from 1 to some large number or does it refer to the year?  Are these rules for bankruptcy more or less universal or somehow related to just this case.  It would be nice to have a short synopsis if you have the time and energy.

Thank you for the translation services that you have provided thus far.  It has made the proceedings more understandable.

[Bronco1821]

On 7/30/2021 at 2:19 PM, AnonEagle said:

At this point in the race I feel like I hitched my wagon to the wrong horse, or maybe that I should have never bothered leaving the stable.

Me too

Edited August 3, 2021 by elitts