Chapter 11 Announced - Part 8 - TCC Term Sheet & Plan Confirmation

[johnsch322]

1 minute ago, PaleRider said:

I don't see it as a handout.We earned every cent coming to us.

Unfortunately, some posters see us as greedy and looking for more than our pain has been valued in similar cases.

[PaleRider]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

Unfortunately, some posters see us as greedy and looking for more than our pain has been valued in similar cases.

Yes indeed.And that's just flat out sad for who thinks that.I would be more than happy to trade places with any of them.Id rather be dirt poor and wake up everyday without this being part of my life for the past 40 years.

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Soo it is perfectly OK if you depict survivors as Peanuts characters looking for a handout but calling the perversion files as they are known today wrong?

I would bet donuts for dollars you don't give an answer.

Well, it does not appear that some of your fellow survivors found the Peanuts post amusing.  But, if you are offended, I apologize.  It seems so fitting for this whole mess, at least to me.  

As for "as they are known today"; that is simply not true.  Just as the ACA is still the Affordable Care Act and not Obama Care, the IV files are still the IV files and not the Perversion Files just because some choose to "pervert" it.  

I suspect you actually completely understand all of this.  

[T2Eagle]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Stop trying to evaluate things out of context.  The entire perception of these things was different back then.  Yes, he actually was instrumental in the IV files, which was a step in the right direction based on the era.  I suspect that given today's systems and information, Mr. West might well have been pushing for major changes and protections now recognized.

Secondly, stop calling them the perversion files please.  That is not what they are called, nor are many of them remotely related to "perversion".   It is like the corruption of the ACA to the Obama Act.  It is misleading and distorts the overall picture or meaning.  

This hyperbolic exaggeration and lack of understanding how society affects things is simply foolish.  

The problem with the idea that "things were different back then" is that the understanding of CSA wasn't all that different.  It was back then considered a heinous crime, punishable by long prison sentence.  It was in fact so heinous a crime that organizations went to great lengths to ensure that nobody knew that it occurred within their organization.

It's true that one of the uses of the IVF files was to attempt to keep predators who had already been discovered from reentering scouting.  But the reason they were kept so secret, the ONLY plausible reason that they were kept so extraordinarily secret, was to protect the organization and its reputation, not the scouts themselves, but the organization.  That cowardly act, that violation of the tenth point of the scout law: to protect the organization's reputation as a pristine environment --- a reputation that it didn't deserve, as demonstrated by the number of predators in its midst --- directly led to a larger harm than would other wise have occurred. Had more people known, had they simply not worked so hard to conceal the truth, steps would have been taken both by individuals and probably even as an organization to reduce the ability of predators to use the scouts for their nefarious deeds.

What reason, other than protecting the organization, was served by not just confidentiality but by the absolutely extreme secrecy surrounding the existence of those predators within scouting's ranks?

[skeptic]

13 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

The problem with the idea that "things were different back then" is that the understanding of CSA wasn't all that different.  It was back then considered a heinous crime, punishable by long prison sentence.  It was in fact so heinous a crime that organizations went to great lengths to ensure that nobody knew that it occurred within their organization.

It's true that one of the uses of the IVF files was to attempt to keep predators who had already been discovered from reentering scouting.  But the reason they were kept so secret, the ONLY plausible reason that they were kept so extraordinarily secret, was to protect the organization and its reputation, not the scouts themselves, but the organization.  That cowardly act, that violation of the tenth point of the scout law: to protect the organization's reputation as a pristine environment --- a reputation that it didn't deserve, as demonstrated by the number of predators in its midst --- directly led to a larger harm than would other wise have occurred. Had more people known, had they simply not worked so hard to conceal the truth, steps would have been taken both by individuals and probably even as an organization to reduce the ability of predators to use the scouts for their nefarious deeds.

What reason, other than protecting the organization, was served by not just confidentiality but by the absolutely extreme secrecy surrounding the existence of those predators within scouting's ranks?

Little of what you suggest has any verifiable validity.  Not sure where you get the ideal of the high level of abuse, other than projections based on little or no factual information.  Also, as has been noted a number of times, the BSA levels were far lower, percentage wise than the larger society, based on what is actually known.  Could it have been much higher; possibly.  But, the whole thing today is all conjecture if you go back prior to 1960 or so, as records were not kept, and other factors are lost or were never recorded.  As far as the IV files; again, no one else did even that.  The secrecy, as you suggest had as much to do with the society at the time as anything else.  As has been shown and discussed, libel and slander law was different back then.  

"

Defamation is a tort that encompasses false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation.

There are two basic categories of defamation: (1) libel and (2) slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation, though much spoken speech that has a written transcript also falls under the rubric of libel.

The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press exists in large part to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. The clash between the two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts and negative public views of the press.

Right to protect one's good name is heart of defamation law

Defamatory comments might include false comments that a person committed a particular crime or engaged in certain sexual activities.

The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote that the essence of a defamation claim is the right to protect one’s good name. He explained in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) that the tort of defamation “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.”

Defamation suits can have chilling effect on free speech

However, defamation suits can threaten and test the vitality of First Amendment rights. If a person fears that she can be sued for defamation for publishing or uttering a statement, he or she may avoid uttering the expression – even if such speech should be protected by the First Amendment.  

This “chilling effect” on speech is one reason why there has been a proliferation of so-called “Anti-SLAPP” suits to allow individuals a way to fight back against these baseless lawsuits that are designed to silence expression. Professors George Pring and Penelope Canaan famously referred to them as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP suits.

Because of the chilling effect of defamation suits, Justices William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, and Arthur Goldberg argued for absolute protection at least for speech about matters of public concern or speech about public officials.  The majority of the Court never went this far and instead attempted to balance or establish an accommodation between protecting reputations and ensuring “breathing space” for First Amendment freedoms. If the press could be punished for every error, a chilling effect would freeze publications on any controversial subject.

Libel was once viewed as unprotected by First Amendment

Before 1964, state law tort claims for defamation weighed more heavily in the legal balance than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. Defamation, like many other common-law torts, was not subject to constitutional baselines.

In fact, the Supreme Court famously referred to libel in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words. Justice Frank Murphy wrote for a unanimous Court that “[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words.” 

So, the secrecy partly related to what is shown in relation to the laws of the time.  Again, should they have feared legal issues?  Probably, just as today we do.  Was that the right course of action?  Based on today, no.  Back then, maybe unless very couragous or powerful in society.  

 

There is no excuse that any abuse, from day one, occurred.  On the other hand, trying to somehow establish stats based on little or no actual records is foolish and simply bad fiction.  

We will never know for sure, but the whole mess has been completely misrepresented in too much of the case, and very worst is put forth as the majority of the problem, when it is/was not.  

Not sure why I even attempt to draw a clearer, more subjective picture.  Those that want to demonize will do so, no matter how many times their projections are noted as being skewed.  

[ThenNow]

29 minutes ago, skeptic said:

ittle of what you suggest has any verifiable validity.  Not sure where you get the ideal of the high level of abuse, other than projections based on little or no factual information. 

I've not chimed in on this point for some time and have developed a new response. Let me try it out. Please don't freak out. I'm trying to illustrate what is being said and what I've said in the past in a different way. Many moons ago I used the phrase, "soul murder." Keep that in mind as you read on.

Let's say you have a national organization with an acute dilemma. It has a "low" overall percentage incidence of a particular pediatric disease, but it is still widespread, i.e., many locations. This disease creates lifelong physiological and psychological impairments to the children afflicted by it. Permanent. Lifelong. Tragic. Sometimes fatal. Critically, you know the cause. (I prefer to use organization rather than a demographic, as would be typical with a disease. It still works here with 252 LCs, jeepers knows how many Packs and Units, and 40,000ish COs.)

Okay. So, let's take brother John's case of 11 boys abused abused by the same two volunteers. There were probably more. I know for a fact five other boys were abused by my SM and I am quite confident there are another 5+ who are claimants here, more likely 10. That's in one small town, one Troop, over a 7-year span. Again, "low" percentage overall incidence, but local concentrations with exponential spikes imbedded by location. Remember this is lifelong and potentially fatal.

Riddle me this: Would an organization with a mission to train up young (wo)men into exemplary citizens and leaders fail to tenaciously weed out the cause with the help of any and all experts? Would they alert the public, children and parents to be aware of the known factors that cause the dreaded disease? In this case, that includes context (kids alone with adults), grooming and the rest. C'mon man. Of course they would. If they did not, what would you call failing to warn any and all concerned about this threat of death for 82,000+ children regardless the timespan. Yup. Even if you became aware of 10 significant outbreaks within a 5 years period and knew the precipitating factors, wouldn't you pursue it aggressively and publicly? If you didn't...ack. Something got muddled up here, regardless the era and time. My take.

Edited March 3, 2022 by ThenNow

[skeptic]

19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I've not chimed in on this point for some time and have developed a new response. Let me try it out. Please don't freak out. I'm trying to illustrate what is being said and what I've said in the past in a different way. Many moons ago I used the phrase, "soul murder." Keep that in mind as you read on.

Let's say you have a national organization with an acute dilemma. It has a "low" overall percentage incidence of a particular pediatric disease, but it is still widespread, i.e., many locations. This disease creates lifelong physiological and psychological impairments to the children afflicted by it. Permanent. Lifelong. Tragic. Sometimes fatal. Critically, you know the cause. (I prefer to use organization rather than a demographic, as would be typical with a disease. It still works here with 252 LCs, jeepers knows how many Packs and Units, and 40,000ish COs.)

Okay. So, let's take brother John's case of 11 boys abused abused by the same two volunteers. There were probably more. I know for a fact five other boys were abused by my SM and I am quite confident there are another 5+ who are claimants here, more likely 10. That's in one small town, one Troop, over a 7-year span. Again, "low" percentage overall incidence, but local concentrations with exponential spikes imbedded by location. Remember this is lifelong and potentially fatal.

Riddle me this: Would an organization with a mission to train up young (wo)men into exemplary citizens and leaders fail to tenaciously weed out the cause with the help of any and all experts? Would they alert the public, children and parents to be aware of the known factors that cause the dreaded disease? In this case, that includes context (kids alone with adults), grooming and the rest. C'mon man. Of course they would. If they did not, what would you call failing to warn any and all concerned about this threat of death for 82,000+ children regardless the timespan. Yup. Even if you became aware of 10 significant outbreaks within a 5 years period and knew the precipitating factors, wouldn't you pursue it aggressively and publicly? If you didn't...ack. Something got muddled up here, regardless the era and time. My take.

The big question is would you make that effort if you were seldom able to verify much things, or others, including family members chose to not pursue it?  Add the just posted difference in liable law back then, what might be the best option.  Today, we see that to be bring it out and nail them.  But, we all know that even today, many cases never are prosectuted due to refusal of someone, either the victim, their families, the strength of the case, and so on.  We cannot know, only recognize we need to do better and alway alert.  We will not change the basic perversions of the human animal, male or female.  They will always be there, and often we get careless for whatever reason.  Hopefully, most of the time, once it is recognized, we can move on it.  Yet we cannot fix what already happened, nor can we change many of the fears that some may have, for whatever reason.  And, as noted here by some survivors, the very process we are in is becoming torture as well.  There is no perfect result or answer.

Yet we also need to take others here now and involved, generally we hope in a positive manner, into account so as to not make them just another type of victim.  JMO of course.  That is not to excuse the mistakes and bad judgment too often in the past.  It is only taking into account that those involved today should not painted with the mistakes of the past, nor should the current youth lose out in order to salve those past mistakes.

Edited March 3, 2022 by skeptic

[ThenNow]

14 minutes ago, skeptic said:

seldom able to verify much things

Define or quantify "seldom," please?

14 minutes ago, skeptic said:

many cases never are prosectuted due to refusal of someone, either the victim, their families, the strength of the case, and so on. 

I do think BSA is conspicuous by its absence on this list. We know they to some degree (I don't know what) requested "No Publicity" on cases. The most damning is the historical fact made popular by our much missed colleague, CynicalScouter. Keeping the existence of the IV Files from Dr. Menniger while he was supposed to be doing an organization-wide risk audit of the organization is very telling and problematic. That was in the 1980's if I recall correctly the date of his testimony.

14 minutes ago, skeptic said:

We will not change the basic perversions of the human animal, male or female. 

Agreed.

14 minutes ago, skeptic said:

often we get careless for whatever reason

This, we cannot afford or abide. We have to do better and I mean societally. 

14 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Yet we cannot fix what already happened, nor can we change many of the fears that some may have, for whatever reason. 

Fear thrives in darkness. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" and knowledge requires disclosure by those in the know.

14 minutes ago, skeptic said:

And, as noted here by some survivors, the very process we are in is becoming torture. 

1000%. This process is distinct from the underlying issue, however.

Edited March 3, 2022 by ThenNow

[yknot]

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The big question is would you make that effort if you were seldom able to verify much things, or others, including family members chose to not pursue it?  Add the just posted difference in liable law back then, what might be the best option.  Today, we see that to be bring it out and nail them.  But, we all know that even today, many cases never are prosectuted due to refusal of someone, either the victim, their families, the strength of the case, and so on.  We cannot know, only recognize we need to do better and alway alert.  We will not change the basic perversions of the human animal, male or female.  They will always be there, and often we get careless for whatever reason.  Hopefully, most of the time, once it is recognized, we can move on it.  Yet we cannot fix what already happened, nor can we change many of the fears that some may have, for whatever reason.  And, as noted here by some survivors, the very process we are in is becoming torture.  There is no perfect result or answer.

The big question is if you were Scouts, even in those early days, how could you countenance this. Scouting made a unique promise to youth, parents, and the American public via the Scout oath and law.  BSA and no one else created the illusion that scouting was an environment where such things as truth, compassion and honor reigned. We know, with the creation of the then "red files", that BSA knew this was a unique problem within its organization. Whatever the social excuses might have been at any time during this sad history, there were no scouting excuses that applied to it.  

[johnsch322]

9 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The big question is would you make that effort if you were seldom able to verify much things, or others, including family members chose to not pursue it?

If as much effort was made to combat the issue as was made to hide the danger, we may not be having this conversation.

This from Michael Johnson former Youth Protection Director of the BSA 

"In my professional opinion, the truth is clear: no child is safe in Scouts BSA programs. The institution, as it stands today, continues to be a HIGH-RISK1 organization for child sexual abuse, due to the accessibility and opportunity the program presents to a range of sex offenders. Scouts BSA’s continued disregard for needed safety reforms, the organization’s long- established business and program model, and decades-long lack of transparency (at the highest level of the organization) with parents, experts, and courts. Throughout my time at Scouts BSA, I witnessed decisions being made that showed the top priority of the organization was not the safety of children, but the preservation of the reputation and brand of the institution and its top sponsoring organizations"

 

 

 

[skeptic]

19 minutes ago, yknot said:

The big question is if you were Scouts, even in those early days, how could you countenance this. Scouting made a unique promise to youth, parents, and the American public via the Scout oath and law.  BSA and no one else created the illusion that scouting was an environment where such things as truth, compassion and honor reigned. We know, with the creation of the then "red files", that BSA knew this was a unique problem within its organization. Whatever the social excuses might have been at any time during this sad history, there were no scouting excuses that applied to it.  

Not sure it was unique, only unique in that they actually recognized a reason for awareness when few others were.  

[skeptic]

20 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

If as much effort was made to combat the issue as was made to hide the danger, we may not be having this conversation.

This from Michael Johnson former Youth Protection Director of the BSA 

"In my professional opinion, the truth is clear: no child is safe in Scouts BSA programs. The institution, as it stands today, continues to be a HIGH-RISK1 organization for child sexual abuse, due to the accessibility and opportunity the program presents to a range of sex offenders. Scouts BSA’s continued disregard for needed safety reforms, the organization’s long- established business and program model, and decades-long lack of transparency (at the highest level of the organization) with parents, experts, and courts. Throughout my time at Scouts BSA, I witnessed decisions being made that showed the top priority of the organization was not the safety of children, but the preservation of the reputation and brand of the institution and its top sponsoring organizations"

 

 

 

Not a really balanced or maybe even unbiased set of comments.  There is no recognition of the efforts of YP that were began earlier than most and often held up as good examples for others.  Most damning might be that he a terminated employee and not a happy camper.  Of course, you might also ask why all this only comes up after he is out of a job?  No one is without fault, and too many chose the easier way out by simply ignoring or bailing with prejucice.  

[johnsch322]

24 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Not a really balanced or maybe even unbiased set of comments.  There is no recognition of the efforts of YP that were began earlier than most and often held up as good examples for others.  Most damning might be that he a terminated employee and not a happy camper.  Of course, you might also ask why all this only comes up after he is out of a job?  No one is without fault, and too many chose the easier way out by simply ignoring or bailing with prejucice.  

It is a comment from a former BSA National insider.  Why would you cast aspersions on MJ? Surely he was higher up the knowledge chain then yourself. He was laid off from a position of Youth Protection and not replaced by anyone. He is an acknowledged expert in his field. What more do you need?

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

He was laid off from a position of Youth Protection and not replaced by anyone.

I would like the 411 on how and why that went down. Where’s Paul Harvey when you need him?

[MYCVAStory]

33 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Of course, you might also ask why all this only comes up after he is out of a job? 

Uhhhh..... As he stated:

1.  He tried when he was employed and was prevented from the change he sought.

2.  In order to create change while employed, he had to to stay employed.  Public comment would prevent that.  "Hey everybody, half the youth protection reports I'm seeing involve youth on youth abuse" isn't a headline the Boy Scouts would have appreciated.

Remember, he turned down a financial bonus to sign an NDA.  I'm willing to buy into his sincerity.