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

[PaleRider]

1 hour 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 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.

It's the past mistakes ie the only reason we are here today.And as far as future boys being affected by the past wouldn't be if the past had been dealt with the moment it happened.And all of that rest squarely on the BSA.As far as parents not wanting to prosucate is their decision that shouldn't be an excuse for them not doing any/everything in their power to prevent this.They may have done some work to prevent but with 82,500 claims is very telling they didn't.

[T2Eagle]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

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.  

First, I don't in any way suggest that the secrecy had anything to do with the society at the time.  Quite the opposite is my point.  Child rape was a felony, pretty much for the history of our republic.  BSA's secrecy was not because of society, BSA's secrecy was to protect the organization from knowing the truth that predators could exist in what they wanted everyone to think was an organization BETTER than society as a whole.  Their secrecy was no different than tobacco companies actively covering up the link between smoking and cancer, or Enron covering up its financial misdeeds, or Purdue pharma covering up the addictive properties of oxycodone, or a myriad other organizations who cover up or covered up problems within their organizations in order to protect their reputations, even at the expense of greater harms being done.

I am an attorney, so if not an expert at least an educated opinionator.  Your description of a difference in libel and slander laws from then to today is a misunderstanding of both the laws then and changes since that time.  As you note, defamation is about FALSE statements.  Truth is an absolute defense to libel claims.  

Let me tackle the historical first, the difference in the laws then and now primarily concern public figures and the press.  The recent Sarah Palin case is an example, where the press is protected against even false statements about public figures, unless they are maliciously made.   

But libel, slander, and defamation laws would never protect an abuser, then or now.  If Johnny scout tells me "Scoutmaster Jones abused me", and I then tell someone else "johnny scout said SM Jones abused him" or even if I'm a little less careful and say "SM Jones abused Johnny scout".  SM Jones cannot successfully sue me unless he thinks he can get Johnny scout to get up on the witness stand and be asked "did SM Jones abuse you", and have Johnny scout say "no, he didn't."  Setting aside that SM Jones would probably not want to draw even more attention to the charge, he knows that in fact he did abuse Johnny scout and so he is more likely to lose than win that suit.

The men who ran scouting, then and now, were titans of society.  It's inconceivable that they were afraid of being sued.  What they were afraid of was the truth, that their organization, with all of the good that it did, also contained predators.  They pursued secrecy well beyond normal confidentiality in order to protect not children but the reputation of the organization, and by extension their own.  They deserve neither our defense nor our sympathy. let alone our admiration.

 

[skeptic]

At least some of it likely fits your assertions.  And again, that was wrong, but pretty much the norm.  Just like the sheriif, or the D.A. did cya for things, or the schools and their boards, and the orphanages, and the psychiatric hospitals and so on.  I do not perceive of it being as rife throughout though as some would have us believe.  It still happened, and the goal of Scouting should have been to NOT go along with the societal "look the other way" attitudes, or other similar common CYA things.  Again, I believe that was why Mr. West conceived of the IV files, seeing them as a way to stop some of the moving around of people with less savory habits.  Not making them public is where the concerns with libel would have come in at the time.  As a legal scholar, what is your view of that part of the discourse.  With the laws in effect at the time, would making the IV files open to others have been a real risk for legal issues?  Especially since they included more than just possibly abuse, but also fraud, embezzlement, and from what I have read general felonious concerns?

Enough of this.  There is no excuse for obviously poor choices, even if in theor y were to somehow "help" protect for the, in theory, better good.  Especially so with abuse, period.  But, I do not believe it was as rampant as some would have us believe, and it certainly was not part of some kind of plot to allow abuse of children.  That just reinforces the point that every member, and connected people to them, needs to be aware of the need to watch for the predators, and understand what they need to recognize as possible concerns.  And we need to somehow get parents to be seriously vigilant, but not make them paranoid.  Keep improving YP and developing the oversights discussed.  

In the meantime, maybe we can try to focus on the overwhelmingly positive offerings of Scouting.  

[MYCVAStory]

8 minutes ago, skeptic said:

In the meantime, maybe we can try to focus on the overwhelmingly positive offerings of Scouting.  

Uh, maybe that needs to be a separate forum.  Going to be a tough lift right now for many of the 82,500 discussing the bankruptcy.

[johnsch322]

34 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Enough of this.

As long as there are those who downplay what happened

 

35 minutes ago, skeptic said:

But, I do not believe it was as rampant as some would have us believe,

There will never be enough of this.

[yknot]

5 hours ago, skeptic said:

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

Not unique? No other youth or young adult organization at the time was selling itself to the American public as a bastion of moral standards and therefore safety. Not 4-H. Not YMCA. Not Little League. Boy scouts marketed its oath and law to boys and parents to convince them they were joining an organization where people adhered to higher ideals and implied their kids would be safe. I don't fault Scouts for having a problem with youth abuse and not being sure what to do about it in individual cases. I do fault them for continuing to cloak themselves in a dishonest false morality and continuing with business as usual when these cases began to pile up. The leaders knew there was a problem then, later, and now. The "red files" as they were first called in the 1920s or so, and then later the IV files, and now the more popularly labeled "perversion" files, are the irrefutable proof. 

[Eagledad]

11 hours ago, yknot said:

Not unique? No other youth or young adult organization at the time was selling itself to the American public as a bastion of moral standards and therefore safety. Not 4-H. Not YMCA. Not Little League. Boy scouts marketed its oath and law to boys and parents to convince them they were joining an organization where people adhered to higher ideals and implied their kids would be safe. I don't fault Scouts for having a problem with youth abuse and not being sure what to do about it in individual cases. I do fault them for continuing to cloak themselves in a dishonest false morality and continuing with business as usual when these cases began to pile up. The leaders knew there was a problem then, later, and now. The "red files" as they were first called in the 1920s or so, and then later the IV files, and now the more popularly labeled "perversion" files, are the irrefutable proof. 

First off, in your 1000 or so posts, I can’t recall you saying one positive thing about the BSA. Second, if you don’t preach it, you don’t teach it. The BSA vision is building character. That’s what the organization preaches, and that is what they teach. Not everyone is in it for the vision, but most are. The moral standards of character is still noble.

Barry

[MYCVAStory]

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

First off, in your 1000 or so posts, I can’t recall you saying one positive thing about the BSA. Second, if you don’t preach it, you don’t teach it. The BSA vision is building character. That’s what the organization preaches, and that is what they teach. Not everyone is in it for the vision, but most are. The moral standards of character is still noble.

Therein lies the problem.  For 82,500 claimants they can't and won't accept an organization that "preaches" character when past behavior runs counter to that.  The BSA has said sorry and wants to make up for the past.  It had its attorney, and not any employee of the BSA apologize to Survivors who met in Delaware when some stepped forward to be considered for the TCC.  It mortgaged the hell out of Philmont so that it could owe JP Morgan and effectively put that out of reach for Survivors.  It has done little to address release of the IV files, kicking that to a Trustee and in two years waited for the TCC and Coalition Survivors Group to take the lead on Youth Protection changes.  Character?  That's what you do when you don't think anyone is looking.  Only problem for the BSA is that everyone is looking and its actions have not matched its words or mission.

[InquisitiveScouter]

9 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

First off, in your 1000 or so posts, I can’t recall you saying one positive thing about the BSA. Second, if you don’t preach it, you don’t teach it. The BSA vision is building character. That’s what the organization preaches, and that is what they teach. Not everyone is in it for the vision, but most are. The moral standards of character is still noble.

Barry

No, Barry, it is the volunteers at the unit level who are "teaching" it.  I find few examples in the professional corps who are teaching it.  And I look for them.

When I do find them, I praise them profusely and support them.  Publicly and privately.  Can't speak for @yknot of course.

The last three DE's I had significant contact with, who walked the talk, have left BSA employ.  Two of the three because of the internal rottenness they could no longer stomach.

It's been a long while since I have interacted with an upstanding SE.  Totally agree this is my subjective opinion, and others are free to believe and behave otherwise...

[johnsch322]

For those of you who are confused about how survivors feel about paying out of the settlement pot, please read the following:

 

2bb5e1b8-2ed8-427f-afab-a5c44f8d373a_9128.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Also how we feel about lawyers who can only tell us how hard they work!!

Edited March 4, 2022 by johnsch322

[InquisitiveScouter]

24 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

For those of you who are confused about how survivors feel about paying out of the settlement pot, please read the following:

 

2bb5e1b8-2ed8-427f-afab-a5c44f8d373a_9128.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Also how we feel about lawyers who can only tell us how hard they work!!

LOVE that letter 😜

[johnsch322]

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

LOVE that letter 😜

I love the author!!

 

[Bronco1821]

 

Hurrah!  Finally someone said what we have ALL been thinking.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Bronco1821

[skeptic]

No matter my different interpretations of some of this, I too find this letter well done and worth every word.  As, no matter where you may be in the larger mess, I have to think we are all simply disgusted with ALL the lawyers, or most anyway.  Thanks.

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

...we are all simply disgusted with ALL the lawyers, or most anyway. 

Thanks for the "most." I assumed that allows present company to be excepted? (There are at least three of us present and relatively accounted for.)