Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I don't think that is what he meant. 

I think he is saying if MJ gives a deposition he will be able to name names, dates and meeting at which his efforts were blocked by BSA.

Sorry. Yes. I was referring to the previous comments which precipitated my comments which precipitated his comments prior to me precipitating your comments. I’m sure I should’ve quoted someone else or some other post. There’s a lot of precipitation on my screen and I misplaced my squeegee. Things are hazy.

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

One of the concerns I have is the specific names in the IVF be distributed, which was called for in the press conference.

I have been tangentially involved in that process for a few names placed on the list. None we for sexual abuse or physical abuse to a scout. They were for things, like white collar crime, fraud, incomplete of misleading information on BSA app, assault against an adult outside of scouting, even the use of fowl language/gestures etc. Of those that had criminal consequences, only one had gone through the justice system. 

The thing is there is not a typical due process function, at least since I have been involved, I cannot speak to past years. Someone gets accused, a review is held, national gets notified and they are put on the list (some are permanent some can appeal for reinstatement,). In some cases they can appeal for reinstatement at a future date. I have not seen the appeal process, but I can say even though some have said they would, that I have seen only one reinstated, but with conditions. That person never attended another event. 

The only case of sexual about I know of personally (as pertains to my Scouting position), is a case where a Scoutmaster was accused of offering to have sex with two scouts on separate occasions. The Scouts declined and nothing physical occurred. The Scoutmaster denied the allegations. The scouts and their parents did not press charges. The Scoutmaster was placed on permanent ineligible in the IVF.

My concern is two fold. 

1. If the IVF is routinely made public, then it is possible, even likely, that innocent people will be labeled as child predators. And without any due process required. Which has a whole set or legal and moral ramifications.

2. If the bar is raised to place someone on the IVF then we will likely still have child predators running free in Scouting. 

I think the names should be placed with authorities, but not released publicly but still maintained as ineligible by Scouting.  If the authorities find cause to press charges then they will become known publicly.

 

Can we say McMartin?

[HelpfulTracks]

5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Can we say McMartin?

That was such a bizarre and anomalous case I don't think is a good example. 

But, we have seen less strange and lower profile examples. 

I want to nail as many predators to the wall as we can, I just don't want someone innocent up on the wall next to them. 

[skeptic]

5 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

That was such a bizarre and anomalous case I don't think is a good example. 

But, we have seen less strange and lower profile examples. 

I want to nail as many predators to the wall as we can, I just don't want someone innocent up on the wall next to them. 

"I want to nail as many predators to the wall as we can".  That I would hope few if any here would have issue with.  Trouble is, it does not seem to be the main goal, as of course, most, if even alive, have little to take, other than their freedom. 

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, skeptic said:

"I want to nail as many predators to the wall as we can".  That I would hope few if any here would have issue with.  Trouble is, it does not seem to be the main goal, as of course, most, if even alive, have little to take, other than their freedom. 

I have an idea! Join us in state by state SoL reform by passing Victims RIghts Acts, to include criminal SoLs. That’s how we get them. I’m locked and loaded and waiting for the day. Maybe then he’ll take that photo of 13 year old me off his Fb page.

[HelpfulTracks]

1 minute ago, skeptic said:

"I want to nail as many predators to the wall as we can".  That I would hope few if any here would have issue with.  Trouble is, it does not seem to be the main goal, as of course, most, if even alive, have little to take, other than their freedom. 

That is not even an option for most as the SOL expansion laws are for civil laws only. The SCOTUS has held that retroactive SOL laws were unconstitutional for criminal laws. 

I expect to see challenges to the civil laws as well, but given the current makeup of the court, they might stand. 

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

That is not even an option for most as the SOL expansion laws are for civil laws only.

A guy’s gotta have a dream. I may have to settle for all his assets, including his home, which I will bulldoze and replace with a monument and meditation garden dedicated to abused scouts. 

[ThenNow]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/former-employee-says-boy-scouts-of-america-is-safer-but-not-for-kids/ar-AAPr1Lj

[HelpfulTracks]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

A guy’s gotta have a dream. I may have to settle for all his assets, including his home, which I will bulldoze and replace with a monument and meditation garden dedicated to abused scouts. 

I like it. Good luck. Your response is much more Scout like than mine would be. 

Though I will admit making SOL retroactive even for civil cases makes me a bit queasy. Politicians are not know for writing laws very well, so I worry about expansion and abuse. 

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I like it. Good luck. Your response is much more Scout like than mine would be.

I’ve refrained from reciting that which has percolated through my brain for the last 20+ years. There are those in my inner circle who don’t know or care what “Scout-like” is, means or implies. They have their own ideas about justice. I don’t advocate what that entails and have quelled the conversations around it. There will be a reckoning, however. When and what it looks like I don’t know. I may never see it this side of the dirt nap. 

[CynicalScouter]

29 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

The SCOTUS has held that retroactive SOL laws were unconstitutional for criminal laws. 

I expect to see challenges to the civil laws as well, but given the current makeup of the court, they might stand. 

 

FYI: Interesting article I read about retroactive extension of statutes of limitations in civil matters. While the U.S. Supreme Court has said since Calder v. Bull (1798) that such things do not violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on states passing ex post facto laws (holding, in part, that the provision applies only to CRIMINAL law) state constitutionshave been read in such a way that such an attempt to extend civil statutes of limitations would be a violation of the defendants under the state constitution's due process and ex post facto provisions. 24 states have a per se rule against such statutes and two others (New York and Wisconsin) only allow it for "exceptional" circumstances.

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3446&context=vlr

"Departing from the federal approach, twenty-four states have held that a retroactive extension to a statute of limitations that revives an otherwise time-barred claim is per se impermissible, meaning that it is absolutely invalid in any context.

• Seven of the per se states depart from the federal approach because of specific prohibitions against retroactive legislation in their own state constitutions. (Alabama, Colorado, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas)
• Eleven per se states (Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia) depart from the federal approach even further by holding that retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations are a direct infringement on a vested property right that is created under their state constitutions. In these states, once a claim has time-lapsed, the potential defendant enjoys a vested property right and no longer needs to defend against a particular claim. Under this type of constitutional interpretation, unlike the federal approach, any infringement on that right to be free from suit is considered a violation of substantive due process and invalid legislation.
• Six states hold retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations to be invalid per se without relying on their state constitutions to support this position.
  • Five states embrace the per se invalid approach but do not cite any source in their constitution or general statutes that create a protected vested right. In these five states—Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Oregon, and Pennsylvania—the complete prohibition against revival of time barred claims is a rule of construction as opposed to a statutory or constitutional restriction.
  • Vermont’s prohibition on retroactive legislation is rooted in a state statutory provision, rather than any limitation imposed by the Vermont constitution."

[HelpfulTracks]

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

 

FYI: Interesting article I read about retroactive extension of statutes of limitations in civil matters. While the U.S. Supreme Court has said since Calder v. Bull (1798) that such things do not violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on states passing ex post facto laws (holding, in part, that the provision applies only to CRIMINAL law) state constitutionshave been read in such a way that such an attempt to extend civil statutes of limitations would be a violation of the defendants under the state constitution's due process and ex post facto provisions. 24 states have a per se rule against such statutes and two others (New York and Wisconsin) only allow it for "exceptional" circumstances.

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3446&context=vlr

"Departing from the federal approach, twenty-four states have held that a retroactive extension to a statute of limitations that revives an otherwise time-barred claim is per se impermissible, meaning that it is absolutely invalid in any context.

• Seven of the per se states depart from the federal approach because of specific prohibitions against retroactive legislation in their own state constitutions. (Alabama, Colorado, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas)
• Eleven per se states (Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia) depart from the federal approach even further by holding that retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations are a direct infringement on a vested property right that is created under their state constitutions. In these states, once a claim has time-lapsed, the potential defendant enjoys a vested property right and no longer needs to defend against a particular claim. Under this type of constitutional interpretation, unlike the federal approach, any infringement on that right to be free from suit is considered a violation of substantive due process and invalid legislation.
• Six states hold retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations to be invalid per se without relying on their state constitutions to support this position.
  • Five states embrace the per se invalid approach but do not cite any source in their constitution or general statutes that create a protected vested right. In these five states—Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Oregon, and Pennsylvania—the complete prohibition against revival of time barred claims is a rule of construction as opposed to a statutory or constitutional restriction.
  • Vermont’s prohibition on retroactive legislation is rooted in a state statutory provision, rather than any limitation imposed by the Vermont constitution."

Interesting, I was unaware of Calder v. Bull (1798). I was aware some states barred the change.

So a challenge may or may not make to SCOTUS. But even if it does, considering the court has flipped from liberal to conservative, a challenge to over turn the civil SOL changes would likely fail. 

But in the end, if it gets to SCOTUS, who knows what will happen, its a roll of the dice for both sides. 

[NealOnWheels]

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

That is not even an option for most as the SOL expansion laws are for civil laws only. The SCOTUS has held that retroactive SOL laws were unconstitutional for criminal laws. 

But it can help in the future.  The sooner this can happen the better.

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, NealOnWheels said:

But it can help in the future.  The sooner this can happen the better.

We can always hope.

[ThenNow]

I’ve asked this before and will try again, since COs are implicated in all of this. Does anyone have a copy or substantive excerpts from the 1970’s agreements?