Chapt 11 Proof of Claim leads to Local Search Warrant, Arrest

[RememberSchiff]

Lt. James Pescia with the Auburn Police Department (AL) testified that police had served a search warrant of  David Barkley "Chip" Johnson’s home and found 12-15 pictures of two children who appeared to be under the age of 12 after police received a sexual abuse survivor proof of claim document from the Boy Scouts of America in March that provided information regarding the sexual abuse of a child more than 25 years ago.

Pescia testified that after he began investigating the claims he was able to find three other reports filed between Feb. 2000 and July 2008 that were all similar in nature and was also able to contact one of the victims.

“[All of the reports] detailed allegations of sexual child abuse with the victims being former acqaintences [sic] of the defendant,” Pescia testified.

The five charges currently levelled against Johnson concern Polaroid photographs allegedly taken of two children, both appearing to be under the age of 12 at the time the photographs were taken, who were depicted in states of undress, Pescia testified.

...

More at source:

https://oanow.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/probable-cause-found-in-child-pornography-case-of-former-auburn-city-schools-employee-and-boy/article_efeefea8-0077-11ec-a406-3f36e734de5c.html

 

If only ... My $0.02,

Edited August 19, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[skeptic]

So, it appears that this led to the actual perpetrator being arrested, as it should.  Note that there is mention of other reports, and they do not appear to be related to BSA.  Just saying; where is the disconnect?  Or will they now lead to another similar circus beyond the actual perp?

[ThenNow]

Not sure if this was posted.

So, in terms of confidentiality, “anonymity” of claimants and BSA’s liberty to submit Proofs of Claim to law enforcement, does this apply only to claims not time-barred? Is it a free for all? Who is reviewing the claims to this degree, other than entering data into the data fields, as I was told was pretty much the extent of it? Who then makes the judgement call to send it to law enforcement? Very keen to know. Good result in this case, regardless. But still...

https://oanow.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/probable-cause-found-in-child-pornography-case-of-former-auburn-city-schools-employee-and-boy/article_efeefea8-0077-11ec-a406-3f36e734de5c.html

Edited August 20, 2021 by ThenNow

[qwazse]

20 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

… So, in terms of confidentiality, “anonymity” of claimants and BSA’s liberty to submit Proofs of Claim to law enforcement, does this apply only to claims not time-barred? Is it a free for all? Who is reviewing the claims to this degree, other than entering data into the data fields, as I was told was pretty much the extent of it? Who then makes the judgement call to send it to law enforcement? Very keen to know. Good result, in this case, regardless. But still...

A good question for which I don’t think there will be a good answer. I don’t think disclosure to the police would be based on statute of limitations. That particular case might not be prosecuted, but it still could be used as evidence to solve another more recent case.
But, the key part of your question: who’s hand is at the tiller, is unclear. The only potential case that I’ve ever had to deal with had already been conveyed to law enforcement, and I got a phone call from a council executive. That was regarding a possibly ineligible volunteer — for which there was an established chain of responsibility. It’s not clear at all who in the organization would be able to act on a claim from these proceedings.

Edited August 20, 2021 by qwazse

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

FYI: This person was also not just some random scoutmaster. If he's the same person I found via google, he was apparently awarded the "Silver Beaver" (Council-level award), a mucky muck in the local OA, etc.

Please clarify what you’re implying by this. It could go in several directions and I don’t want to assume what you mean. 

[CynicalScouter]

On 8/20/2021 at 9:23 AM, ThenNow said:

Please clarify what you’re implying by this. It could go in several directions and I don’t want to assume what you mean. 

What I mean is that the fact that this person was not just some relatively unknown scoutmaster but was a long time scout leader in the area and had been awarded the council's highest honor probably made him more well known. Thus if a scout executive saw the name "Scoutmaster Smith" on a proof of claim he might say "who? huh?" whereas this person was active in local scouting for decades.

On 8/20/2021 at 8:57 AM, ThenNow said:

Is it a free for all?

This is my wild, wild, wild speculation here.

BSA policy under YPT is that once a scout executive is notified of potential sexual abuse of a scout, they MUST report to law enforcement. Thus, I could see (again speculation here) that if a scout executive got a proof of claim that Scoutmaster Smith abused a scout in 1965, that might not be sent to law enforcement because the statute of limitations ran out and/or Scoutmaster Smith is dead. BUT, if Scoutmaster Jones is very much alive, then I would think a report might happen.

FYI: This person was also not just some random scoutmaster. If he's the same person I found via google, he was apparently awarded the "Silver Beaver" (Council-level award), a mucky muck in the local OA, etc.

Edited August 25, 2021 by RememberSchiff
Appended a post which should have been transferred

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

What I mean is that the fact that this person was not just some relatively unknown scoutmaster but was a long time scout leader in the area and had been awarded the council's highest honor probably made him more well known. Thus if a scout executive saw the name "Scoutmaster Smith" on a proof of claim he might say "who? huh?" whereas this person was active in local scouting for decades.

That’s what I thought you meant. Likely true and that’s a problem in itself, isn’t it? “Oh, crap! Ol’ SilverWeasel is in this Proof of Claim! Better get this out there now.” That’s a bit of a problem if the action taken is in any way driven by an element of notoriety, LC exposure or lack thereof, as opposed to the substance of the claim and the alleged abuse, yes? I know we’re off into the field of whine and supposes, at this point.

[qwazse]

@ThenNow some councils are more tightly knit than others. Lots of reasons for this. But, I don't think the SE would be acting with a particular prejudice. In general they are shuffled around the country, a lot. The more urgent concern will be one of youth still being harmed. As mandatory reporters any evidence that a scouter might be an abuser has to be reported to the authorities.

I would not be surprised if SE's were directed to review claims for names of any reported perpertrator who is still registered. None of us would be privy to such a directive. But, I also would not be surprised if an SE (or many SE's) would take this task on independently.

Furthermore, I can't see how an SE could withhold this information from law enforcement. PA's law is written with current abuse in mind, but I don't know if the wording has any true limitations to that effect.

In general, once these claims are verified, is there any reason why they should be kept from the scrutiny of law enforcement?

[CynicalScouter]

Kosnoff wants to know who leaked this info as well, and wants the TCC to step in.

 

[Eagle94-A1]

Stupid question, so no offense is meant.

If you had a list of accused abusers (remember, innocent until proven guilty) wouldn't you want to go through the list to see if any are still active in Scouting, remove them from Scouting, contact authorities,  and begin the legal process to put them behind bars?

I would think this is a good thing, especially for victims.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Eagle94-A1

[RememberSchiff]

Keeping files secret, how ironic.  It's like deja vu all over again.

Edited August 20, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[CynicalScouter]

22 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

If you had a list of accused abusers (remember, innocent until proven guilty) wouldn't you want to go through the list to see if any are still active in Scouting, remove them from Scouting, contact authorities,  and begin the legal process to put them behind bars?

I think the point is that victims, in filling out the form, THOUGHT it would be used ONLY in the context of a) their claim and b) the bankruptcy proceeding in general. But there was one additional sentence.

Quote

Unless you indicate below, your identity and your Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim will be kept confidential, under seal,
and outside the public record. However, information in this Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim will be confidentially provided,
pursuant to Court-approved guidelines, to the Debtors, the Debtors’ counsel and retained advisors, certain insurers of BSA, the Tort
Claimants’ Committee, counsel to the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils (with personally identifiable information redacted),
individual Local Councils solely with respect to Sexual Abuse Claims asserted against them, attorneys at the Office of the United States
Trustee for the District of Delaware, the Future Claimants’ Representative, the Court, and confidentially to such other persons that the
Court determines need the information in order to evaluate the claim. Information in this Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim may be
required to be disclosed to governmental authorities under mandatory reporting laws in many jurisdictions.

This Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim (along with any accompanying exhibits and attachments) will be maintained
as confidential unless you expressly request that it be publicly available by checking the “public” box and signing below.

Note this sentence

Quote

Information in this Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim may be required to be disclosed to governmental authorities under mandatory reporting laws in many jurisdictions.

I am betting/thinking that they'll claim someone at the Local Council was a mandatory reporter.

Edited August 20, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[RememberSchiff]

Agreed and as you quoted from form:

"Information in this Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim may be required to be disclosed to governmental authorities under mandatory reporting laws in many jurisdictions. "

 

[Eagle94-A1]

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I am betting/thinking that they'll claim someone at the Local Council was a mandatory reporter.

Is that not the case now?  I know in my state, that is the case. 

Besides, didn't Kasnoff state BSA did not do enough in the past? Now tBSA is doing something,  and he complains?  

Besides the complete dissolution of the BSA,  what else does he want? 

[Eagle1970]

Ok.  Mandatory reporting.  I get that.  I should have read that.  My abuser likes guns.  Great.  Thanks BSA.  My proof already made its way to the Catholic Insurance Fund.  Might just as well put it in the paper.  This whole thing has gone from helping victims into an all-out S### show.  I don't need the minimal compensation as much as I need my security and well-being.  Just sorry I ever filed.