Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[yknot]

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

No.  Nothing wrong with letting everyone know you will defend, tooth and claw, those who cannot defend themselves.

In general of course, but individually that's kind of a given? My kids intuitively know that if anyone threatens them, whatever that threat is, it will also face me and hopefully die a painful death.  But -- myself, school teachers, coaches, 4-H leaders -- no one greets people at the doors of their activity saying that you'll die if you mess with these kids. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 minute ago, yknot said:

In general of course, but individually that's kind of a given? My kids intuitively know that if anyone threatens them, whatever that threat is, it will also face me and hopefully die a painful death.  But -- myself, school teachers, coaches, 4-H leaders -- no one greets people at the doors of their activity saying that you'll die if you mess with these kids. 

Lol...it's not an in-your‐face kind of thing.  Tactfully done, and usually one on one.  Serious, grave, chivalrous even.  But never loud and public...that"d be weird bravado and very off‐putting, no?

[elitts]

18 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

If YPT policies were followed, it should have been very difficult for something like this to have happened.  

When we did the Protect Yourself Rules adventure with our Cub Scouts, I emphasized repeatedly to them that they can never be alone with any adult at any Scout activity, other than their parents.  Not me, not another parent, not anyone.

The biggest thing YPT related that I hope comes out of this is the elimination of the 72 hour rule.  I have voiced my opinion on this both here, and in my unit, district, and council.  Anyone who wants to accompany us on any outing needs to be registered, take YPT training, and be background checked.  When I have stated this here, I have on occasion been called out, with some stating that there could be many reasons beside CSA that could cause someone to not want to go through the background check.  My view there is simple, and will not change.  I do not care why someone might refuse to register due to the background check requirement.  The fact that they would refuse it is sufficient to say that I do not want them around my Scouts.

Actually, I've been one of the people commenting on this notion, though I don't recall if it was you or not.  What I've said is that there are people who may not pass (by the BSA';s standards) a background check for reasons unrelated to CSA and that would be a problem.  If someone actually refuses a free or very cheap background check entirely, I don't think anyone would argue against keeping them out.  But there could be times when someone submitted to a background check but can't get registered for due to an offense in their past that poses no risk to kids.  The one case I know of personally is a HS friend of my sister who is still on the sex offender registry for statutory rape because he had sex with his 16 year old long-term GF  when he had turned 18 but when she was still 2 months from turning 17 and the Romeo & Juliet exceptions hadn't been written in yet.

But I wouldn't mind if anyone who wasn't registered was restricted from interacting with any scout but their own on camp-outs.  The ability for any parent to observe doesn't need to mean they interact.  They can watch the goings on from the Adult site just fine.

[johnsch322]

I just watched the coalition town hall along with several others that I am on a chat with.  KR started to get very heated at the end when we asked a lot of questions about what he was saying.  The official question count was at about 26 and between the 3 or 4 of us we must have asked 30 questions.  Not an a very accurate question count by the coalition.

He also talked in a not nice way about Jim Stang and the fact that TCC has paused town halls until after voting.

And once again he said big announcements were coming real soon.  

[ThenNow]

Posted this elsewhere, but for gee whiz, here it is again. The topic was circling around ridiculous lawsuits that damage defendants, though there is no reasonable basis to bring suit, and plaintiff’s attorneys have no reason not to bring them. I first thought of sanctions and demanding plaintiffs of such suits pay all costs and fees of the defendant. As I say below, I know not even a thimble full about this. As my dad would tell me, “You don’t know enough about that to blow your nose.” I always thought that odd. 

I have only begun to study this in the last couple days, though I am somewhat familiar with the craziness in Cook County, IL. I know how I think/feel going into it, but we shall see. Per a Reuters article, I will read Prof. Chamblee Burch’s book, Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation. If inclined, you can check out the site link below, which has a link to a study, and there’s a link to a dated essay. I often like to read older stuff then track it forward. I’m interested in the other attorney’s thoughts, as well as anyone else. As for me, all I know is I’m not entirely comfortable with what we have on our hands courtesy of the mass tort bar. I won’t judge until I know more. Than I will rule promptly, because that’s what judges do. They rule. 

https://www.atra.org/2021/12/07/nations-worst-judicial-hellholes-expand-liability-allow-frivolous-lawsuits/

Haven’t started this yet and there are many others. I know nothing about sanctions and/or reform efforts to curb frivolous lawsuits, but I’ll be interest to check it all out.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=dlj

[skeptic]

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

It is very doubtful that the assets of the independent local councils would ever go to national.  Our council would not agree to that and our state's attorney general will fight the transfer of any council's assets within our state.  We could pivot to a youth service organization and continue a youth service mission.

The way in which you wrote the above sounds like the court is fighting the BSA which is not the case.  The court should be committed to preserving the BSA while adjudicating the bankruptcy and the judge has said that in her comments.

The state court lawsuits will drag on for many more years and many claimants will see nothing as most are statute of limitation barred.

There is not $10 B in assets in the whole of the BSA Scouting.  

Once again, the malice and greed shows through; or so it appears with this scenario.  That is what is wrong with the whole mess.  Too many inidividuals that are simply looking for money and or vengence.  The xxx with any peripheral damage and those harmed.  

[skeptic]

And the violin continues as Rome is burning.  I had a short interaction with an elderly woman at our church, a Methodist, about her thoughts on the legal issues.  It is interesting how so many of what most would consider the average citizen seem to still have a positive feeling about Scouts and are just as disappointed and frustrated as many of us here.  We keep coming back to my term, balance, and how that really is NOT a word that the loudest proposents care to hear.  Again, the main considerations, in various stances are money, vengence, general malice, exageration, and messed legal system.  Meanwhile local units continue to give community service and other outreach with not strings.  Simply very sad.

[johnsch322]

6 minutes ago, skeptic said:

And the violin continues as Rome is burning.  I had a short interaction with an elderly woman at our church, a Methodist, about her thoughts on the legal issues.  It is interesting how so many of what most would consider the average citizen seem to still have a positive feeling about Scouts and are just as disappointed and frustrated as many of us here.  We keep coming back to my term, balance, and how that really is NOT a word that the loudest proposents care to hear.  Again, the main considerations, in various stances are money, vengence, general malice, exageration, and messed legal system.  Meanwhile local units continue to give community service and other outreach with not strings.  Simply very sad.

?

 

[skeptic]

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

?

 

Yes, it really is one big question as to what is real and what is simply modern societal confusion.  There are many old saws that could apply, but it basiclly comes back down to the lack of "balance", like on the Lady's scale.  Locally meanwhile, some units are rebuilding trails with the FS, others are doing outreach to the homeless, and food pantries are getting somehow restocked.  Scouts help with civic ceremonies and still go camping and have fun, even with the many restraints.  The idea that the huge value of the larger, and still working program should be tossed to the rubbish heap due to that lack of balance and grand wishes and really in many cases greed, is simply sad.  That is my view; and I understand that some feel otherwise, thoug I would suggest that they are not seeing through the glass clearly.  Merry Christmas.

[johnsch322]

26 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Yes, it really is one big question as to what is real and what is simply modern societal confusion.  There are many old saws that could apply, but it basiclly comes back down to the lack of "balance", like on the Lady's scale.  Locally meanwhile, some units are rebuilding trails with the FS, others are doing outreach to the homeless, and food pantries are getting somehow restocked.  Scouts help with civic ceremonies and still go camping and have fun, even with the many restraints.  The idea that the huge value of the larger, and still working program should be tossed to the rubbish heap due to that lack of balance and grand wishes and really in many cases greed, is simply sad.  That is my view; and I understand that some feel otherwise, thoug I would suggest that they are not seeing through the glass clearly.  Merry Christmas.

I just cannot get past the view of just compensation for a lifetime of pain is "greed" and that scouts who do "civic ceremonies and still go camping and have fun" creates a balance were I and other survivors (those who were abused by members of the BSA) and therefore we should get less.  

[clbkbx]

37 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I just cannot get past the view of just compensation for a lifetime of pain is "greed"

I completely agree with this. A fair representation of wanting an outcome with compensation closer to, but still much lower than, claim values determined by experts is not "greed".

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

basiclly comes back down to the lack of "balance", like on the Lady's scale

Bankruptcy court is supposed to find that balance.  I would argue, if this was a National BSA bankruptcy only, and the settlement stayed within those bounds, we would see that scale more clearly.

1) BSA must be allowed to exit bankruptcy with a 5 year business plan that is achievable.

2) Claimants must approve the plan.  

I expect it would be much easier for all sides to find that balance.  Now, by including LCs and COs and then their insurance coverage ... that scale becomes a 9-dimensional array and likely requires a degree in high energy physics to figure out.  

If there wasn't a major impact on camps, this would be much easier to take at the unit level.  However, part of me believes if councils really wanted to save their camps they could.  Most seem happy with the direction we are headed (online MB classes and Cub Scout day camps)

[skeptic]

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I just cannot get past the view of just compensation for a lifetime of pain is "greed" and that scouts who do "civic ceremonies and still go camping and have fun" creates a balance were I and other survivors (those who were abused by members of the BSA) and therefore we should get less.  

That is something that I cannot explain.  Just compensation that completely ruins an overly very positive community asset is, in my perspective not just at all.  I have no issue with fair compensation, just with finding the most dollars, even if it means destroying BSA and its mostly positive outreach.  I have noted that paying for real pain and whatever counseling may be needed should be part of it; but simply ignoring the effects on others, especially that had nothing to do with it, is just as unfair, or out ow balance.  It comes from a different perspective or something.  A psychologist might offer some clarity, but that is beyond the average person that sees the larger world.  And that does not even address the likely other decision makers that "may" have made poor decisions based on the time and family or societal approaches. 

 

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I have noted that paying for real pain and whatever counseling may be needed should be part of it

How does that work for some of us who have already lost/invested/said bye-bye to 100’s of thousands in real spendable dollars, as per my post up yonder?  

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

A thought came to me about just and fair compensation and how ridiculous the current offer is and let me explain. 

Survivors at a minimum suffer from PTSD, depression and anxiety.  If the VA determined that you had these same conditions from a traumatic event (and the sexual abuse is considered (traumatic) you would be awarded a minimum of a 30% disability.  A 30% disability would get you tax free approximately $500 per month or $6000 per year.  In addition you would be entitled free medical and that could easily be seen as an additional $500 per month.  If you got your VA award at the age of 30 and you lived until the age of 83 (hypothetical of course) you would have an award of $600,00.  

I know that we are in a bankruptcy but with an average award under the current plan to be about $39,000 or less (depends on who does the math) that is a pitiful amount compared to $600,000.  If I receive $39,000 and had to pay no lawyers fees and my abuse happened at the age of 13 and I lived to be 83 I would have received it would come out to $557 dollars for every year that I suffered.

Well, I would say that at least makes a picture that makes some sense, though is really still apples and oranges to some extent.  Also, far too many questions arise as to how many valid claims there may be, and also the categories in which they fall in the continum devised by the "experts".