Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[johnsch322]

15 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It seems "employee" is bring thrown about a bit too loosely.  BSA may be responsible for it's volunteers, but ASMs are not employees.  ASMs are worse off than unpaid volunteers.  In fact, ASMs PAY to be members and volunteer.   ASMs PAY to purchase training materials.  ASMs PAY to get their uniform.  ASMs PAY to camp.  ASMs PAY to use BSA property. In reality, very little of BSA's treatment of volunteers looks like employees. 

It seems extremely shallow to summarize ASMs as employees.  In fact, BSA looks more like a vender selling a product to the ASM voluinteers (and all scouting volunteers).  

Anyone ever used an employment checklist test to see if they are employees?  I used to take one as a contractor at times.  Or how about a volunteer test checklist.  I'm not sure ASMs would even qualify as volunteers given the level of products bought from BSA.

Laws have changed.  This is not an area that has been clealy and consistently defined over time.  Volunteer responsibility law has been evolving.  

Wether he was paid or unpaid is immaterial to the situation. He worked for the BSA. In fact as an ASM he had authority  over others and more than likely used that authority in the course of the abuse. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by johnsch322

[David CO]

9 hours ago, ThenNow said:

1) 11 year old Scout was discovered going through his teenage sister’s intimates. His father reprimanded him.

That is hilarious.  The rest of it isn't funny at all.  But I can't help but laugh at this part.  

I grew up in a very large family.  All of the kids, who were old enough to do so, helped out with the household chores, including laundry.  Washing, drying, and folding.  We even had a laundry line out in the back yard where all of our "intimates" were hung out to air dry.  We didn't have central air conditioning, and summers were too hot to run the electric clothes dryer.

Maybe this is another example of changing cultural norms.  

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I'm not sure whether to ask these questions as it is part of a very painful experience for you and because it continues to haunt your life.  Please accept my apologies for asking.

This not my case. As I mentioned, this is an IVF I plucked from the online record that was logged in my town and LC. It is very relevant to my case and claim. Still want me to answer? I have no emotional attachment to this case and, I think, have been pretty open and willing to answer any and all questions about my own experience. Thanks.

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

BUT, it's also being used as an example of a case handled poorly. 

I’m not sure who’s using it as an example of a case that was handled poorly, at least not as to my previously noted Phase II. I posted it in response to John asking how these things were handled and reported in the day. His “day” was the 60’s. Mine, the early 70’s. I figured this would work. 

[ThenNow]

6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

It seems "employee" is bring thrown about a bit too loosely.  BSA may be responsible for it's volunteers, but ASMs are not employees.  ASMs are worse off than unpaid volunteers.  In fact, ASMs PAY to be members and volunteer.   ASMs PAY to purchase training materials.  ASMs PAY to get their uniform.  ASMs PAY to camp.  ASMs PAY to use BSA property. In reality, very little of BSA's treatment of volunteers looks like employees. 

Easy fix: Do a global search for “employee” and replace it with “agent.” Bam. Liability B.I.N.G.O. Agency is the issue and there’s that in spades. Legally, there’s no question or doubt. Employee was used loosely, I think. Carry on...

Edited August 5, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, David CO said:

That is hilarious.  The rest of it isn't funny at all.

“That canoe trip was amazing until Grampa fell in and drown.”

”Yeah. I know. He ruined everything.”

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Easy fix: Do a global search and replace for “employee” and replace it with “agent.” Bam. Liability B.I.N.G.O. Agency is the issue and there’s that in spades.

Exactly. The phrase is "officers, agents or employees" or the other version I've seen is "officers, employees and agents"

I'm going to take the language from one such lawsuit and delete the name of the abusive scoutmaster to show the point.

Quote

35. Upon  information  and  belief,  defendants  BOY  SCOUTS  OF  AMERICA  and LONGHOUSE  COUNCIL,  INC.,  BOY  SCOUTS  OF  AMERICA,  and  defendant’s  agents, servants,  and/or  employees,  have  control  over  scouting  programs  and  activities  involving children.

So BSA and the Local Council had control over scouting programs in the area.

Quote

42. Upon  information  and  belief,  despite  defendants’  knowledge  of  the  dangers  of sexual abuse of boys in defendants’ programs, at no time prior to 2010 did defendants specifically warn boys in defendants’ programs, or said boys’ parents, about the known danger, or implement reasonable and feasible child abuse prevention policies.

This gets back to my prior postings in negligence/duty of care: BSA in particular KNEW for DECADES it had a problem with pedophiles in the program and did either nothing or not enough. Or actively covered it up which gets to...

Quote

44. Upon information and belief, defendants intentionally and actively concealed the continuous and systemic danger of sexual abuse of scouts in their programming.

And the materials unearthed as part of the Oregon case provided more than enough proof of that. And then there's this.

Quote

45. Upon information and belief, defendants also actively promoted and represented to the public that defendants’ scouting programs were safe and wholesome, and that adult leaders such as [ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER] were safe and trustworthy.

So this is where the COs, the LCs, and BSA "own" the problem. They touted these men (and some women) as safe and trustworthy and did little to nothing to actually supervise or monitor what was going on.

Quote

46. At all times relevant, defendants invited and otherwise encouraged the participation  of  minors,  including  plaintiff,  in  their  scouting  programming  and  selected  adults such as [ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER] to serve in leadership positions.

Yep. The CO put the abusive scoutmaster in that position and the LC and/or BSA encouraged scouts and parents to go to these programs where the leaders were, in effect, left to run amok.

Quote

47. Upon  information  and  belief,  defendants  had  known  for  decades  that  scouting involved an unreasonably high risk of sexual abuse by adult leaders and volunteers.   
48. Plaintiff  alleges  that  he  trusted  defendants  and  thus  reasonably  relied  upon defendants’ representations that the Boy Scouts presented a moral and safe place for minors.

This is the "relied to my child's harm" aspect. BSA, the LC, and/or the CO touted it was a safe place, their leaders were good men/women, etc. And then did nothing (or not much) to see if that was true. And then this particular lawsuit lays it all out. In short, [ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER] was either an agent, servant, or employee of BSA and the LC and BSA and the LC (along with the CO) were in charge of these scouting units and did nothing to supervise or maintain any kind of responsibility for what happened.

Quote

 

49. At all relevant times defendant LONGHOUSE COUNCIL, INC., BOY SCOUTS  OF  AMERICA,  through  defendant’s  agents,  servants,  and/or  employees,  managed, maintained, operated, and controlled Boy Scout Troops, Cub Scout Troops, other Scout Troops, and Boy Scout camps in within defendant’s geographic area of control, including  the Boy Scout   Troop based in [TOWN NAME] New York, which plaintiff joined.

50. At  all  relevant  times,  defendants,  through  defendants’  agents,  servants,  and/or employees,  managed,  maintained,  operated,  and  controlled  the  Scout  leaders  and  volunteers  of Boy Scout Troops, Cub Scout Troops, other Scout Troops, and Boy Scout camps in New York, including the Scout leaders such as [ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER] of the Boy Scout troop plaintiff joined.

51. At  all  relevant  times,  defendants,  through  defendants’  agents,  servants,  and employees, held out defendants’ agents, servants, and/or employees to the public as those who managed, maintained, operated, and controlled plaintiff’s Boy Scout Troop.

52. At all relevant times, defendants BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA and LONGHOUSE  COUNCIL,  INC.,  BOY  SCOUTS  OF  AMERICA  were  responsible  for  the hiring  and  staffing,  and  did  the  hiring  and  staffing,  for  the  Scout  leaders  such  as  [ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER], and volunteers of  plaintiff’s Boy Scout Troop.

53. At all relevant times, defendants BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA and LONGHOUSE  COUNCIL,  INC.,  BOY  SCOUTS  OF  AMERICA  were  responsible  for  the recruitment and staffing of the Scout leaders such as [ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER] and volunteers for plaintiff’s Boy Scout Troop.

54. At all relevant times, defendants BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA and LONGHOUSE  COUNCIL,  INC.,  BOY  SCOUTS  OF  AMERICA  were  responsible  for supervising the Scout leaders such as Scoutmaster [ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER] and volunteers for plaintiff’s Boy Scout Troop.

 

 

[CynicalScouter]

On 7/30/2021 at 5:45 PM, vol_scouter said:

Would you mind educating the non-legal folks about Rules? 

One more follow-up to demonstrate how statutes, Rules, and Local Rules work using in this case a motion by the insurers to compel BSA to produce documents and asking that the motion be heard ahead of schedule/normal deadlines for BSA to respond.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fd3d02e5-dc26-4e24-90c2-a5376767168a_5883.pdf

So the Bankruptcy Code (what Congress enacted) has Section 105(a) which in detailing the Power of court includes this

Quote

The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.

So, that's a broad authorization for the court to issue lots of things.

There's a Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9006(c) allows a bankruptcy court to reduce the deadlines for anything set by the Bankruptcy Procedure Rules "for cause shown." So, if normally the Rules give you a 30 day deadline, the court "for cause shown" can reduce that down.

But even THAT is kinda ambiguous. So Delaware Bankruptcy Court Local Rule 9006-1(e) gets even more specific:

Quote

Shortened Notice.  No motion will be scheduled on less notice than required by these Local Rules or the Fed. R. Bankr. P. except by order of the Court, on written motion (served on all interested parties) specifying the exigencies justifying shortened notice.  The Court will rule on such motion promptly without need for a hearing.

So, there you go.

Congress gives the courts the power to issue any necessary orders.

Rule 9006 says those orders may include reducing/shrinking deadlines established by the Rules.

And Local Rule 9006-1(e) says such a request to reduce the notice deadline has to be in writing and that it will be ruled on without a hearing.

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

22 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I was a scout in the 60's and I am not sure what exactly was the formal procedure for reporting was then. 

Was my post on the ‘73 IVF of any help?

[johnsch322]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Was my post on the ‘73 IVF of any help?

Yes. My thinking over the last few days has been was there any formal written instructions from the BSA on how to handle abuse cases once the troop became aware of them. 
Also was there anything written on how to help the victims?

Edited August 5, 2021 by johnsch322

[ThenNow]

19 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

My thinking over the last few days has been was there any formal written instructions from the BSA on how to handle abuse cases once the troop became aware of them. 
Also was there anything written on how to help the victims?

Ah. Gotcha. The other guys would be best able to update you on that.

I can also tell you, as you may have read in my posts, the SE managing this matter knew about the booze and pornography in our Troop. He participated, in fact. How can that be seen as anything other than willing complicity, failure of the duty to warn and effectively accessory to the crime of abuse? He was the dang SE for cripe’s sake. He knew we were being provided those things. In light of the criminality alone, exacerbated by his knowledge that these are elements OF abuse and precursors to illegal sexual contact, he did nothing. Well, other than *Wink wink. Nod nod* I hate that those two boys went through what they did, but finding that file changed my perspective entirely.

Edited August 5, 2021 by ThenNow

[Muttsy]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Ah. Gotcha. The other guys would be best able to update you on that.

I can also tell you, as you may have read in my posts, the SE managing this matter knew about the booze and pornography in our Troop. He participated, in fact. How can that be seen as anything other than willing complicity, failure of the duty to warn and effectively accessory to the crime of abuse? He was the dang SE for cripe’s sake. He knew we were being provided those things. In light of the criminality alone, exacerbated by his knowledge that these are elements OF abuse and precursors to illegal sexual contact, did nothing. Well, other than *Wink wink. Nod nod* I hate that those two boys went through what they did, but finding that file changed my perspective entirely.

 

Ernst Secret 1972 Memo To Scout Executives re IVs.0001.pdf

[yknot]

17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Yes. My thinking over the last few days has been was there any formal written instructions from the BSA on how to handle abuse cases once the troop became aware of them. 
Also was there anything written on how to help the victims?

I'm sure you must be aware of this article from the LA Times from August 2012, but it does allude to some BSA policies including the fact that both probation of suspected abusers and suspensions were abolished after 1988. Up until that time, some offenders were placed on probation. There are some links to further research attached. I've always remembered this article because it was so horrific and was right around the time my eldest son crossed over to Troop. 

 

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:boAe1_XlNOMJ:https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-boyscouts-20120805-m-story.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[ThenNow]

10 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

 

Ernst Secret 1972 Memo To Scout Executives re IVs.0001.pdf 67.73 kB · 4 downloads

He lives!!

So the SE in my tale of woe had this. Well now.

Edited August 5, 2021 by ThenNow

[skeptic]

This summary related to various BSA efforts to make leaders, parents, and youth more aware of abuse issues is interesting.  https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/youth-protection/100-years-of-enhancing-efforts-to-protect-youth/

Based on this, certainly the shared info on the one lawsuit content that states "prior to 2010" is inaccurate, as are statements that no effort was made to communicate with parents, leaders, and so on.  They also inserted the first Parent Guide in the handbook in 1990 and it was "in theory" reviewed by the parent(s) and scout as part of the joining requirement.  As noted by one of the online historians of the Handbook, most copies he has seen indicate they were likely not used by most families, based on their not being detached and showing no wear.  

Obviously, Scouting Magazine would not have been seen by parents if not a registered adult.  And, if the scouts were not encouraged to review and read the Boys' Life material on the subject, that too would have likely not been particularly helpful.  And, we all likely recognize that may not have been something most youth would voluntarily read at that point in their lives.

On the other hand, to say that BSA made little or no effort to combat this issue is fairly obviously not accurate either.  Errors in judgement on all levels, lack of prioritizing the information as required (though verifying is difficult), lax follow ups in many cases for whatever reasons, many common in the wider culture at the time, and the fact that predators cannot absolutely be stopped, all contributed and still contribute today.  

So, it continues to be a morass of confusing and often contradictory information and efforts.  

I would ask any of the "victims" after 1990 if they recall having reviewed the insert in their Handbook with a parent or guardian, or did they even look at it, even if not with a parent?  That is simply a question, not an accusation or excuse.