Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[johnsch322]

40 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Oh, I see. You're only using a teeny, tiny itty bitty bitty predictive model. Well that is different. See how well that works when engineers used the same amount of design to defend a car wreck or plane crash..

You folks admittingly don't have a clue of the numbers, high or low. Nobody does. Lots of emotion, but not a lot of data.

I'm curious, I can understand lawyers using these numbers in court to your advantage. But what do you gain defending those numbers on this forum where it doesn't make a difference. You're situation implies an obvious bias, so you aren't changing any minds. I don't get it.

Barry

I believe that the number of 82k is low and here is why. My abuser per the perversion files molested at least 11 boys. When looking at the claims I am the only claimant on the local council. What happened to the at least 10 others?  In the highest number of years statistically a large percentage of men have died. They aren’t counted. The reason this matters is so that some people can’t just say oh millions have been scouts and only a minuscule amount have been abused and then trumpet oh look how good a job the BSA does or has done. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by johnsch322

[MYCVAStory]

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

What are my assumptions? 

I do not use this forum normally for one-on-one debate.  That said, it appeared to me that your assumption was that there were fewer than 82,000 cases of abuse.  If I was wrong and you believe there were more, my apologies.  If your assumption is that we will never know the true number then we both agree.  My point was that when 16% is generally accepted as being the prevalence, and this as been cited consistently, then before anyone assumes the amount in abuse is less in scouting they should do the math.

[Eagledad]

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

I do not use this forum normally for one-on-one debate.  That said, it appeared to me that your assumption was that there were fewer than 82,000 cases of abuse.  If I was wrong and you believe there were more, my apologies.  If your assumption is that we will never know the true number then we both agree.  My point was that when 16% is generally accepted as being the prevalence, and this as been cited consistently, then before anyone assumes the amount in abuse is less in scouting they should do the math.

I don't have an assumption of numbers in this discussion because there isn't accurate data one way or the other. That is the point of my post. 

Barry

[ThenNow]

51 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

You're only using a teeny, tiny itty bitty bitty predictive model.

Not what I said. I wasn’t talking about the size of a model, rather whether engineers use such. For the record.

 

53 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

You folks admittingly don't have a clue of the numbers, high or low. Nobody does. Lots of emotion, but not a lot of data.

Wrong. Engineers like research, no? Get after it...

 

54 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

But what do you gain defending those numbers on this forum where it doesn't make a difference.

Please read more carefully. I’m defending method and challenging you on your assertions that you, as a professional engineer, do not use modeling or data extrapolation based on well-established facts and research. 

Of course it makes a difference. I challenge you to say that my presence here, and the presence and voices of those victims who followed me in speaking up, changed no minds, made no difference and was of no value to the discussion. 

[Eagledad]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Of course it makes a difference. I challenge you to say that my presence here, and the presence and voices of those victims who followed me in speaking up, changed no minds, made no difference and was of no value to the discussion. 

Hmm, not enough data.

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

Listening to the hearing (stepped away for 30 minutes).

We are still in the depths of the discovery mess and mediation privilege. In the broadest strokes:

1) The insurance companies say that BSA wants the judge to rule the RSA was done in a "good faith" manner (key term here folks, pay attention) and that a "good faith" determination will allow BSA to then loop the insurance companies into massive claims later. Therefore, the insurance companies get access to EVERYTHING.

They are also claiming that BSA is engaged in illegal collusion with the TCC/Coalition/FCR.

2) The BSA is saying that the insurance companies do not get to see "how the sausage gets made". Also object strongly to the idea that there was improper collusion.

Judge rules: the testimony will come in today. The judge will consider the discovery objections as she listens. "I am surprised there was not a board resolution" by the BSA.

Judge notes: mediation is often used in bankruptcy and cloaking EVERYTHING in mediation privilege like BSA is using it like this is unusual. "I will be thinking about this."

We will have testimony and if at the end of the day she feels like parties were harmed by the lack of information BSA's privilege claims she will turn back to it then.

11:52am Eastern - 5 minute break

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

3 hours ago, Eagledad said:

You have said this before and you should stop because it's purely conjecture based on nothing.

I'm an engineer and we learn quickly that quality of the design, and safety in my field, is the result of the precision of facts and elements used in development. Anything less looses integrity. We all have our quirks and the scouts in my troop (and my kids) learned quickly that I am a patient man/father until someone spreads guesses and conjecture as facts.

Stop?   A one sided request.   

Many ugly bad statements are being made about BSA.  Without comparative metrics.  It's wrong to take incidents  and draw larger conclusions.  BSA had at it's peak 5m+ members registered each year.  Even with just a 20% turn over, that's well over a 100m members.   Is the abuse rate high?  low?  I'm not sure.  Then set in a context of times when such things were not commonly reported or processed.  The BSA metric seems high because of BSA having the IVF files helped document and raise awareness.  The question is what is the real incident rate.  No one knows.  What is the real incident rate in other organizations and society.  No one knows.

As an engineer, you've created processes and methods.  The IVF files were a systematic process; very much like a good engineering would create.  In the era before everyone had a computer ... before easy background checks ... before education and medical experts were advocating for similar.  BSA should be applauded for that process structure and doing more than others did.

Incidents are always ugly.  Always.  People have a right to feel angry.  

The issue is as you said.  Numbers.  Standards.  Comparisons.  There are some numbers and I'm not sure BSA fairs any different than others.  Better in some ways.  Worse in others.  

Maligning BSA based on incidents is wrong.  Label the incident and the individuals, but many of us are uncomfortable labeling the larger organization due to this.

Edited August 12, 2021 by fred8033

[qwazse]

Oh, numbers!

So the Dube et. al. study gave no incentives for members of a San Diego HMO  to report childhood sexual abuse, and came up with a rate of 16% in males and 25% in females. That's twice the average of some broader surveys of adults, but take it at face value.

Large (some would say exaggerated) incentives were given to erstwhile scouts to report CSA and less than 1% of members (and that's after deducting an estimate of those who might have died and whose estates might not care to lay claim) came forward.

If one were to make an ecological hypothesis based on the rate reported by a San Diego HMO, there should be over a million victimized scouts. Either:

1. The TCC's methods of finding victims failed.
2. A vast majority of victims want nothing to do with this litigation.
3. The rate of victimization in scouting is ostensibly lower than outside of it.

None of these possibilities are reasons for complacency among scouters. But, it is a chilling thought that discouraging organizations to support programs shown to reduce risk of abuse might have the unintended consequence of exposing America's youth to increased risk.

BTW, Dube et. al. weren't really trying to estimate population rates of CSA.  Their paper is very interesting because it examines the elevated odds of long term problems among folks who reported CSA. Here is their concluding paragraph (which is probably worth a whole topic in and of itself):

Quote

In conclusion, the data presented provide important implications for public health and preventive medicine. First, childhood sexual abuse is a common form of childhood maltreatment in both men and women. Second, childhood sexual abuse and severity of the abuse have a similar relative impact on behavioral, mental health, and social outcomes for both men and women survivors, as reported during adulthood. Moreover, it was demonstrated that female perpetration of CSA upon boys was common (40%), and increased the risk of behavioral and social outcomes among male CSA victims. Emphasis on a clearer understanding that children and adolescents of both genders are vulnerable to CSA is needed so that healthcare practitioners can meticulously screen for their occurrence in the pediatric setting. From a social dynamic perspective, the recognition that both females and males perpetrate CSA is also needed; this type of information helps to clarify characteristics related to this form of childhood maltreatment, especially in the development of prevention programs and interventions.

 

[CynicalScouter]

Next discovery issue: Century/Chubb's refusal to release information about Century and Chubb's assets. "The 20 billion dollar elephant in the room is Chubb".

Judge: why is this relevant to TODAY?

Answer: It is a gating issue to the Hartford settlement.

Judge: Century/Chubb's refusal to produce will be dealt with later. We are not here to approve the Hartford deal.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MYCVAStory]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-012-0426-1

Methods

We included studies published between 2002 and 2009 that reported CSA in children below 18 years. We performed a random effects meta-analysis and analyzed moderator variables by meta-regression.

Results

Fifty-five studies from 24 countries were included. According to four predefined types of sexual abuse, prevalence estimates ranged from 8 to 31 % for girls and 3 to 17 % for boys. Nine girls and 3 boys out of 100 are victims of forced intercourse. Heterogeneity between primary studies was high in all analyses.

And from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J070v12n01_05

Few empirical studies have been conducted in this area but research suggests that few victims tell anyone about child sexual abuse as children

I really don't want to debate further the actual number or percentage of participant abuse while in the BSA.  If it wasn't a problem, and wasn't continuing to occur, we wouldn't be where we are today.  Period.

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

I really don't want to debate further the actual number or percentage of participant abuse while in the BSA.  If it wasn't a problem, and wasn't continuing to occur, we wouldn't be where we are today.  Period.

Sadly, there are still people here trying to downplay the child sexual abuse. You are right: if there wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be here. But some people are still claiming BSA had (and has) no child sexual abuse problem.

[Eagledad]

23 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Incidents are always ugly.  Always.  People have a right to feel angry.  

The issue is as you said.  Numbers.  Standards.  Comparisons.  There are some numbers and I'm not sure BSA fairs any different than others.  Better in some ways.  Worse in others.  

Maligning BSA based on incidents is wrong.  Label the incident and the individuals, but many of us are uncomfortable labeling the larger organization due to this.

Good post.

I have no trouble with the anger. I struggle with how the vague numbers are used as fact. One way or the other. When data can't be defended, it becomes a weapon for both sides of debate. Doing this was a big no no in debate class back in high school because it gets nowhere. The 82,000 has gone nowhere for a long time. Better to leave this thread as a reporting the facts of the case.

Barry

 

[Eagledad]

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Sadly, there are still people here trying to downplay the child sexual abuse. You are right: if there wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be here. But some people are still claiming BSA had (and has) no child sexual abuse problem.

That isn't true. Some folks just want to see the facts..

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

Next up: Insurance companies discovery motion on plan to pay the Coalition's legal fees upfront/ahead of everyone else.

Chubb/Century is claiming collusion/quid pro quo regarding Coalition's acceptance of the RSA. In short, the claim is that the Coalition's lawyers got bribed into taking the RSA deal by having their fees paid for ahead of everyone else. Therefore, BSA and the Coalition need to release how it was that element got added in. How did BSA decide that the Coalition's fees were "reasonable" at all, much less this plan to pay?

Coalition response: Really what Chubb/Century wants is drafts of the RSA which are mediation privileged.

Judge: That's not what Chubb/Century wants. He wants to know how the Coalition pay-ahead-of-all-others plan came about. Not drafts of the RSA.

Coalition response: We haven't submitted any bills yet, but the Coalition gets paid up to $10.5 million.

Judge: How did you come up with $10.5 million? How did you get that number? The BSA/debtor came up with that number themselves?

Coalition: Yes.

Coalition: Also, we get $950,000 a month going forward. That's a cap, not a guaranteed number.

Judge: The Coalition produced no documents to BSA about how to get to that $10.5 million or anything else?

Coalition: There may have been an Excel sheet of fees to date.

Judge: Ok, Chubb/Century. There are no documents.

Chubb/Century: There's no way board did due diligence then. And there MUST have been emails outside of a mediation session. There must be emails.

Judge: I'm hearing that there is nothing, so there's nothing.

12:38pm We are now on to the main course: the RSA and witness testimony.

I'll tried to write it down and come back later.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Some folks just want to see the facts..

The fact is children were sexually abused. Downplaying it and defending BSA at all costs, claiming they are all (or most all) liars isn't helping. Denial won't help BSA survive.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter