Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[Life]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yes! I’m officially nominating Animal House as the new analogy to replace The Circus. Perfect. 

I hope the play the “imperial March” score from Star Wars when the Judge walks in tomorrow. 

[mrjohns2]

3 hours ago, skeptic said:

It was him that dubbed the "Ineligible Volunteer" files as the "Perversion" files and pushed the media to not tell anywhere near the complete picture.  The truth that many of the files had little or nothing to do with abuse of any type, but were for other things; but that was conveniently left out with his skewed attacks. 

I have read about 60 of the files. Every one, ever one, was about abuse. They seemed to be split 50/50 - 1/2 about allegations of abuse in Scouts and the other 1/2 was about a Scout arrested for abuse and to take their name off of the registration. If you think that they had little or nothing to do with abuse of any type and were for other things, I wonder why all 60 of the ones I read were 100% about abuse? 

[skeptic]

Two questions.  Who gave you the files to read, and were you able to review completely at random.  Those that have reported on the files in depth note that they are not all about abuse, though many are.  Leave it at that, as it is obvious that you were given selected files.

[vol_scouter]

14 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I have read about 60 of the files. Every one, ever one, was about abuse. They seemed to be split 50/50 - 1/2 about allegations of abuse in Scouts and the other 1/2 was about a Scout arrested for abuse and to take their name off of the registration. If you think that they had little or nothing to do with abuse of any type and were for other things, I wonder why all 60 of the ones I read were 100% about abuse? 

Because that was what was ordered to be released by the court.  The BSA did not release information about others in the Ineligible Volunteer Files (IVF).  There are many in the IVF that had nothing to do with child sexual abuse.

[SiouxRanger]

9 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Because that was what was ordered to be released by the court.  The BSA did not release information about others in the Ineligible Volunteer Files (IVF).  There are many in the IVF that had nothing to do with child sexual abuse.

Would be interesting to see the IVF for those excluded for reasons other than sexual abuse-those excluded for political reasons only.  And why would National be in the business of political purges?

[vol_scouter]

10 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Would be interesting to see the IVF for those excluded for reasons other than sexual abuse-those excluded for political reasons only.  And why would National be in the business of political purges?

They were not.  Some people were felt to mismanage unit, district, or council funds.  There are other categories that I do not recall.

 

[mrjohns2]

35 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Who gave you the files to read, and were you able to review completely at random.

The internet. 

Tracking decades of allegations in the Boy Scouts - Spreadsheets - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Ok, sure, those are the ones that came out that were about abuse. But 5000? Pretty clear that was a big portion of them. I do agree with the other poster that said that none of the embezzlement ones were there. Good point. 

[SiouxRanger]

12 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

They were not.  Some people were felt to mismanage unit, district, or council funds.  There are other categories that I do not recall.

 

Thanks.

 

[CynicalScouter]

I posted about this in June. There is still some confusion.

The official name was the Ineligible Volunteer Files (IVF).

A person could be added to the IVF for a variety of reasons, https://documents.latimes.com/boy-scouts-paper-trail-of-abuse-documents/

There were six categories

1. Perversion
2. Morals
3. Financial
4. Leadership
5. Theft
6. Criminal

Clearly for purposes of the sexual abuse lawsuit(s) going back into the 1990s, some of these were more relevant than others. The "Perversion" files, while the biggest subset, were not the ONLY subset, however people mislabel ALL the IVF files as the "perversion" files.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

That one word, perversion, likely has done more damage than anything else,, even if it tells very little of the realities within those file,s. 

I am pretty sure the BSA would not have named it the "perversion files" instead they called it something that would was more innocuous  the "IVF". As soon as one report had to do with the abuse of boys it became perverted on it's own.  

I am sure you do know that it wasn't Tim Kosnoff who thru the Oregon Supreme Court had the BSA release the IVF files.  It was an attorney named Kelly Clark who is now deceased.  Also it was the media who named them the "perversion files" and that happened immediately.

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

Not saying he should not have won, only that the level of hype and amount of the payout was onerous and extreme. 

What would you say would not be onerous and extreme.  The victim in the case in Oregon was awarded 18.5 million.  Any time that a judgement is rendered it can always be appealed if it is excessive.

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I am pretty sure the BSA would not have named it the "perversion files"

No, they literally called them the "perversion files" or "P files" since at least the 1930s.

It started as the Red Flag Files, were later renamed the Confidential Files, and finally renamed to the Ineligible Volunteer (IV Files). It was subdivided into the 6 categories I mentioned:

1. Morals (M)
2. Financial (F)
3. Leadership (L)
4. Criminal  (C)
5. Theft  (T)
6. Perversion (P)

There are contemporaneous notes indicating at least since the 1930s that scout officials used the words "perversion file" or "p file".

For more information see this from the BSA's own official review of their practices in this area.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/youthprotection/pdf/WarrenReport.pdf

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[David CO]

45 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

And why would National be in the business of political purges?

Why indeed.  But they are.

[johnsch322]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No, they literally called them the "perversion files" or "P files" since at least the 1930s.

Well that predates Tim Kosnoff.  And the name "perversion files" or "P files" pretty much says that the BSA knew what they had in their ranks.

[Eagle94-A1]

For those who have questions on non abuse IVF cases, I can verify that the one individual i know in them with no accusation of abuse was not in any of the released files I looked at online. I specifically looked for them.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

And the name "perversion files" or "P files" pretty much says that the BSA knew what they had in their ranks.

Yep. They knew. The question in the Oregon case and others was:

1) Did BSA do enough to stop it?

2) Did BSA active attempt to cover it up?

What BSA argued, successfully I might add in some cases but not all, is that they did the best they could to try and keep the "perverts" out by creating these files in the first place. Some juries agreed, others felt BSA could have and should have done more.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter