Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[SiouxRanger]

10 minutes ago, Life said:

You still have ‘yellow pages’ ? 

Well, yes, in a fashion.  The books keep keeping getting smaller, length and width, but thicker.  The print shrinks and getting hard to read.

[ThenNow]

59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Whoever said he wasn't an attorney any longer was misinformed.

What MAY have happened (pure speculation) is he was admitted to practice in Texas and let that lapse OR he let his Washington State Bar admission lapse and then became active again.

I said that, but it was qualified with, “I simply state what was told to me by the Chinese plate.” Insurance companies made this inference based on the “no body’s home” sign at his defunct office in Texas and that he now calls himself a consultant. I later said I would be happy to have him as my attorney. If I gave the impression that he unequivocally is not licensed, please chalk it up to a senior moment of cognitive weakness. Or, perhaps, you just don’t yet know how to read my mind.

[ThenNow]

10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Electronic sweeping and such are virtually impossible to do effectively at a price anyone is willing to pay.

A basic RF detector is $150 and the size of a small remote transmitter. Perhaps Swiss Army can incorporate it into the knife? A slightly more precise pen light size device (“wand”) is $300. RF Signal Detector 1205li. It has an attenuation feature so you can dial in more precisely on the signal. The Andre Deluxe Advanced Detector will set you back $7000 and looks a lot like a really nice fish finder. I am going to buy one of the lower priced models and use it around the house to see if it finds the cameras, on and/or off. Just for fun. It will be in my Dopp kit for travel, as well. Should we ever meet, don’t be surprised if I have a pen light in my pocket protector with all the pens, a bulky Swiss Army knife and a fish finder pendant sorta like Flava Flav’s clock.

[SiouxRanger]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

A basic RF detector is $150 and the size of a small remote transmitter. Perhaps Swiss Army can incorporate it into the knife? A slightly more precise pen light size device (“wand”) is $300. RF Signal Detector 1205li. It has an attenuation feature so you can dial in more precisely on the signal. The Andre Deluxe Advanced Detector will set you back $7000 and looks a lot like a really nice fish finder. I am going to buy one of the lower priced models and use it around the house to see if it finds the cameras, on and/or off. Just for fun. It will be in my Dopp kit for travel, as well. Should we ever meet, don’t be surprised if I have a pen light in my pocket protector with all the pens, a bulky Swiss Army knife and a fish finder pendant sorta like Flava Flav’s clock.

I had originally typed" impracticable and impossible," but that seemed wordy, so I dropped impracticable.  Impracticable would have been the better choice.  As camp buildings are scattered and accessed at all hours of the day or night, and a sweep is only good for the moment it is done, I was envisioning a Morning sweep, noon sweep, an after dinner sweep, and a lights out sweep.

And that's convenient.

I always wear a metal detector, so I will see you coming.

(And thanks for the info.  Probably not all hidden cameras emit RF if not broadcasting images in real time but merely storing data on a chip for later retrieval.  Can THEY be detected?)

[CynicalScouter]

USA Today opinion piece by victim: Abused boys, traumatized men: Bankruptcy plea exposes Boy Scouts as the cowards they are survivors of heinous crimes deserve to have their day in court, but the bankruptcy proceedings essentially shut down future lawsuits against the BSA.

Quote

As it stands, there is still a gap between what our claims are worth and what the BSA has suggested....

While no amount of money can make me or any other survivor “whole,” a meager payout that lets the Boy Scouts walk away will be a devastating blow. True justice in this case is impossible, but bankruptcy is the coward’s way out. The BSA has the funds to pay victims fairly, and they should.

 

I still am trying to struggle to understand what victims have been told is BSA's actual holdings/assets and what "fairly" looks like.

I've always expressed my concern that thanks to misunderstandings and/or outright misinformation that victims believe BSA has more money than they actually do and will reject any settlement because they have been convinced BSA has tens of billions.

Again, and I hate to bang on about this, but let the numbers speak for themselves.

$1.4 billion in BSA assets (when this started, likely much less now) / 82,500 victims = ~$17,000. That's full and complete liquidation of all BSA assets, NO payments to ANY other creditors (including the pension plan), etc.

$4 billion in Local Council assets (number I saw tossed around at one point) / 82,500 victims = ~$48,000. That's full and complete liquidation of all LC assets, NO payments to ANY other creditors (including the pension plan).

Which means even if somehow you completely liquidated BSA and LCs, disregarded statutes of limitations, paid out to no other creditors but the victims, etc. the "average" victim would get $65,000.

I guess if I had a chance to ask a single question to the author of that piece, I'd ask: given the above, what would be "fair" compensation to the victims?

That's not judgment. I cannot imagine the absolutely torture he went through and is going through. But I am trying to understand from they eyes of the victim(s) what "fair" looks like and set that against the above realities.

Edited August 1, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Probably not all hidden cameras emit RF if not broadcasting images in real time but merely storing data on a chip for later retrieval.  Can THEY be detected?)

I think the Mack Daddy among them can. I don’t read spy, but it seems pretty comprehensive. This will link you to what I was surfing. You can see the less expensive models, too.

https://www.spygadgets.com/andre-deluxe-advance-bug-detector/

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I guess if I had a chance to ask a single question to the author of that piece, I'd ask: given the above, what would be "fair" compensation to the victims?

Thank you for posting this link. My first reaction is, finally, finally, finally. This article was too long in the coming. 

As to “fair,” hm. Let me see. While most know my BSA future split personality, when you read something like this, the only answer can be: absolutely everything humanly possible. How can you not? Seriously. I know I have minimized my abuse every day of my life, including this one. My therapist reminds me that I am a ferocious survivor and many, many people would be long dead or in prison. (Survivors, please tell yourself that RIGHT NOW!) That “everything possible”would include whatever the insurance companies can be forced to disgorge at the hands of those best of the best of the best insurance attorneys assisting the Trustee Muttsy told us about. Hopefully, they can get us every single thin dime that can be scraped from every single policy covering every single entity that was covered by this policies. Here’s how I feel after reading that and have increasingly so lately as this drags on and the circus plays on.

If BSA really and truly believed they owe victims “equitable compensation,” they would open their hands and unlock the safes to anything they have. Does that mean they don’t survive? You can fill in the answer. In light of that view, honor dictates BSA should face the risk of shuttering the operation and donating the body to forensic science and law enforcement to examine every aspect of what went down. That said, I still don’t know if I can personally let go of the potential good the BSA can do going forward. My human reaction to that piece, and probably should be to my own abuse, is ransack the castle and take all you can get.

Sorry. That is a wicked, wicked, WICKED experience he went through. The fact that it was not isolated to one event, one time frame, one type of abuse AND involved way more than one person disgusts me. That word doesn’t even touch my reaction. My God, mercy on him and all of us who went through this. I weep...

Edited August 1, 2021 by ThenNow

[skeptic]

Sorry, but the level of depravity partially shared here approached the same tenor that took over the McMartin episode.  And, what is not determined is IF the victim ever did report anything.  He claims it was at the hands of the leader and his son, yet are there others from the period that reported anything?  And, if the terrible series of attacks and the trauma that resulted was not actually brought to the attention of anyone, what exactly should have resulted?  We are surely not seeing the whole picture, and again, the media is taking the "story" as gospel and not even attempting to view it in the wider context of the time and the society that allowed it to happen.  There is no excuse for this to have occurred, but if it was NOT brought out then, how was BSA to know?  And, if it was brought out to parents, what did they do to mitigate it?  

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, skeptic said:

but if it was NOT brought out then, how was BSA to know?  And, if it was brought out to parents, what did they do to mitigate it?  

Do we have to go back there? We have told you and others the answers to this ad nauseous. (Used advisedly.) Further, the first reaction is to question the victim? Really? If others of us had it in us and/or if the court didn’t redact, there would be more AND more AND more such articles. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

24 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Sorry, but the level of depravity partially shared here approached the same tenor that took over the McMartin episode.  And, what is not determined is IF the victim ever did report anything.  He claims it was at the hands of the leader and his son, yet are there others from the period that reported anything?  And, if the terrible series of attacks and the trauma that resulted was not actually brought to the attention of anyone, what exactly should have resulted?  We are surely not seeing the whole picture, and again, the media is taking the "story" as gospel and not even attempting to view it in the wider context of the time and the society that allowed it to happen.  There is no excuse for this to have occurred, but if it was NOT brought out then, how was BSA to know?  And, if it was brought out to parents, what did they do to mitigate it?  

I am appalled at the tenor of this post. It smacks of victim blaming “if the victim reported anything” if we haven’t learned anything we should know the victims/survivors as a whole told no one. “Wider context of the time”? How is that really relevant in the context of what took place?  My personal story which I have  told is one which is so similar to so many that I have read.  The pattern of abuse reporting was set and used for over 50 years by the BSA. 

[skeptic]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Do we have to go back there? We have told you and others the answers to this ad nauseous. (Used advisedly.) Further, the first reaction is to question the victim? Really? If others of us had it in us and/or if the court didn’t redact, there would be more AND more AND more such articles. 

 

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Do we have to go back there? We have told you and others the answers to this ad nauseous. (Used advisedly.) Further, the first reaction is to question the victim? Really? If others of us had it in us and/or if the court didn’t redact, there would be more AND more AND more such articles. 

No, we should not be going back there, we should be trying to determine the truth.  As noted, the way the article is written, it is almost impossible to see it as not exaggerated at least.  HOW could someone be repeatedly abused and  subjected to being put in a shallow grave and urinated upon by the group without any of it coming out?  Something happened to traumatize him, but the level of depravity, while possible, seems almost beyond the pale.  Maybe I am simply too much of a skeptic, and have seen too many stories that have been "stretched" for whatever reason, to not see some doubt in this article.  But, I also suspect there is a level of authenticity, and real trauma incurred.  But, he does suggest that the issue needs to be addressed on a broader, societal level, which is good.  As another poster noted, there is a huge misconception of how much BSA can pay, as well as a segment that cares not that the overall program still carries far more benefit than negativity, especially with the more updated systems.  NONE of it will or can ever be perfect and a guarantee against the worst in society, but it can be close to it if the programs added for protection are followed and constantly improved as new info and tech becomes available.  

[skeptic]

7 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I am appalled at the tenor of this post. It smacks of victim blaming “if the victim reported anything” if we haven’t learned anything we should know the victims/survivors as a whole told no one. “Wider context of the time”? How is that really relevant in the context of what took place?  My personal story which I have  told is one which is so similar to so many that I have read.  The pattern of abuse reporting was set and used for over 50 years by the BSA. 

And there lies the rub.  Any suggestion that there might be some lack of accuity over time is somehow blaming the victim.  We saw that in the deplorable side show in the Kavanaugh hearings.  I am not yet senile enough to not continue to see the probability of some enhancements over time of traumatic and also amusing incidents in life.  So, let me go back to being a skeptical realist, trying to see through the glass clearly when the prism is clouded.  Nuf said.

 

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Any suggestion that there might be some lack of accuity over time is somehow blaming the victim.  We saw that in the deplorable side show in the Kavanaugh hearings.  I am not yet senile enough to not continue to see the probability of some enhancements over time of traumatic and also amusing incidents in life. 

Well, Justice Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the US Supreme Court and an accuser came out of nowhere with pretty much zero corroboration and a very sketchy memory. It’s unfair to compare these two situations and maybe a little absurd. Yes. Probability. But, remember there are those among you that are among the “us” of this story. The tenor of questioning both a recounting in a widely circulated press outlet and by implication us, isn’t just a random assertion about faulty memory or impure motive. You put the stink on us, as well. 

[CynicalScouter]

58 minutes ago, skeptic said:

There is no excuse for this to have occurred, but if it was NOT brought out then, how was BSA to know?  And, if it was brought out to parents, what did they do to mitigate it?  

For what feels like the millionth time: the point isn't that BSA knew after the fact or that BSA did or did not report as to this particular Scoutmaster.

The point is and I repeat myself but it is necessary.

The reason BSA is being sued (and has lost numerous times in state courts prior to 2020) is that yes, the pedophile did it, but BSA was negligent in allowing it to happen. In short, and I mean very, very short:

1) Boy Scouts of America (BSA National, the Congressionally Chartered entity) created the Boy Scouts (or Cub Scouts, or whatever) program and chartered local councils to carry that program out.

2) Boy Scouts of America directly chartered each year the units in question.

3) Boy Scouts of America knew from early, early on it had a pedophile problem and created the Ineligible Volunteer Files.

4) Boy Scouts of America, the Local Council, and the CO still acted recklessly or negligently in allowing the abuser to access to the scout.

Therefore

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."

Now, before people start screaming "That's not fair! That's not right!" keep in mind that these are the underlying arguments that have already been successfully used against BSA and LCs in the past.

 

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I think the Mack Daddy among them can. I don’t read spy, but it seems pretty comprehensive. This will link you to what I was surfing. You can see the less expensive models, too.

https://www.spygadgets.com/andre-deluxe-advance-bug-detector/

I have read the 1965 book The Codebreakers by David Kahn-perhaps one of the finest pieces of work I have ever read (notwithstanding my library of Winston Churchill and Prescott's Conquest of Mexico and Conquest of Peru). Cutting off at 1965, Kahn's book is miles behind current technology. There is an update, I believe. (Never thought of reading it until this moment, my interest being WWII.)

I can only assume the technology is out there to detect hidden surveillance cameras, but that camp staffs now are placed in this position of monitoring and the time involved.

Perhaps we are at the point that 18 to 20 year olds, who are not only in the midst of grappling with their own emotional transition into adulthood, and all the emotional awkwardness that involves, but are also now burdened with monitoring and supervising adults 10, 20 or 30 years their senior.