Chapter 11 announced - Part 14 - Plan Effective

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

Personally I think the settlement was a bad deal for the BSA for a number of reasons. The NBC documentary said that of the 2.4 BILLION that the claiments would get 1.4 Billion (average $1,700) and the lawyers would split 1 Billion. Makes a lot of lawyers and law firms very wealthy. Most of the claims (90%) were over 30 years old. Very few cases involved BSA employees or camp staff as abusers so why sue the BSA and not the abusers? The lawyers went for the deep pockets... imagine trying to track down 10's of thousands of predators, many of whom had died and others with little or no assets. In so many cases the BSA employees were 3 or 4 times removed from the incident. The scout might disclose to a leader or parent or other adult and they would contact perhaps the council or chartered partner that would contact the local council who would notify the national office. Most BSA staff at any level really only had hearsay, 2nd or 3rd hand information that might not be allowed in court. Add to that little or no physical evidence. The BSA lawyers didn't do a very good job of defending the National organization. The BSA needed some 'pitbull' lawyers to defend it. I say, go for a new trial. I doubt that the BSA has much to lose and a lot to gain.... as long as they get some new lawyers to represent them. 

 

All of what you say here is very disrespectful to survivors. 

[Eagle1970]

We can agree that distributing a sizable portion of BSA assets to law firms is a crying shame.  Beyond that, the fact that BSA is allowed to survive at all, after its employee molested me and so many others were victimized.... that's the bad deal.  But just fyi, this is a forum where survivors are trying to work through grief.  So, go troll Elon and give the BSA victims some peace please.

[Ojoman]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

All of what you say here is very disrespectful to survivors. 

Meaning no disrespect to survivors... if any youths were abused by council staff then they ought to receive a significant settlement from that council. The vast majority of cases were volunteers that violated the trust of  parents, chartered partners and the youth. Those are the ones that ought to be in jail and pay compensation. 1.4 billion divided by 82k comes out to around $1,700 per person on average. That is inadequate for anyone that was sexually abused. Having said that, the vast majority of scouts were not abused and had a positive experience in the program. To force councils to deplete their cash reserves and sell off properties and increase fees to pay damages for abuses committed by pedophiles that lied to get access to kids is not right. I can understand anyone that was abused being angry and frustrated and wanting justice. Personally, the one case I came in contact with in my 30 years as a professional the guy ended up in jail where he belonged. That, at least, put the blame where it belonged. 

[johnsch322]

33 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

Meaning no disrespect to survivors... if any youths were abused by council staff then they ought to receive a significant settlement from that council. The vast majority of cases were volunteers that violated the trust of  parents, chartered partners and the youth. Those are the ones that ought to be in jail and pay compensation. 1.4 billion divided by 82k comes out to around $1,700 per person on average. That is inadequate for anyone that was sexually abused. Having said that, the vast majority of scouts were not abused and had a positive experience in the program. To force councils to deplete their cash reserves and sell off properties and increase fees to pay damages for abuses committed by pedophiles that lied to get access to kids is not right. I can understand anyone that was abused being angry and frustrated and wanting justice. Personally, the one case I came in contact with in my 30 years as a professional the guy ended up in jail where he belonged. That, at least, put the blame where it belonged. 

You are so misinformed. 

[Ojoman]

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

You are so misinformed. 

Perhaps... 

 

[MYCVAStory]

2 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Most BSA staff at any level really only had hearsay, 2nd or 3rd hand information that might not be allowed in court. Add to that little or no physical evidence. The BSA lawyers didn't do a very good job of defending the National organization. The BSA needed some 'pitbull' lawyers to defend it. I say, go for a new trial. I doubt that the BSA has much to lose and a lot to gain.... as long as they get some new lawyers to represent them. 

That's just a portion, but I beg you, please, spend some time and go WAY back to dig into the posts on this topic.  While there are opposing views, there is a great deal to be learned from the posts.  In the words of the late Senator Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts."

[MYCVAStory]

I listened closely to the SCOTUS hearing today, and spoke to several attorneys after, all of whom have a history in reading SCOTUS "tea leaves."  What made today a bit tricky were the underlying feelings/hatred for the Sacklers.  Cutting through that though this dealt with the existing law and the inconsistency between Districts as to how they treat third-party releases.  The media is portraying this as the Court having strong feelings both ways.  It usually does because it queries attorneys on both sides of their arguments.   My takeaway, and it was confirmed by the attorneys I spoke to, was that the Court was extremely deferential to the proponents of the Purdie plan and the use of the releases.  Time and again the Justices raised the issue that the plan proponents overwhelmingly supported the releases, and the underlying theme was "then why should the Court disagree?"  There were also questions regarding why the Court should step in when Congress can remedy this as it has with Asbestos claims specifically.  There is never any way to completely predict SCOTUS decisions but those I spoke to predicted that in June the decision will be to uphold Purdue with some new direction to place some guardrails on cases going forward.  In the case of the BSA, if the Appeals Court rules before SCOTUS does and denies the appeal, and then SCOTUS doesn't take it up (and why should it now) then the BSA Plan is set in stone and the settling insurers can pay up fully.  Many predict that the Appellate will just wait until after SCOTUS, deny the appeal, and then the same outcome is reached.  Again, no way to predict but if you were looking for a deeply doubtful SCOTUS that was looking for a reason to deny third-party releases then you didn't get it today.  The full oral argument, and it's fascinating to listen to, is here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-legality-of-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan

[T2Eagle]

That the parties agreed to the Purdue or BSA or any other plan seems like the weakest argument I can think of.  If the non consensual releases were illegal then neither side would agree to the plan and something altogether different would have happened.  The question should be are these releases valid under the law as written.  Parties agreeing to something under a faulty view of the law and therefore a flawed view of what the consequences of not settling is arguing that the outcome must be right because it is the outcome.

[fred8033]

10 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Meaning no disrespect to survivors... if any youths were abused by council staff then they ought to receive a significant settlement from that council. The vast majority of cases were volunteers that violated the trust of  parents, chartered partners and the youth. Those are the ones that ought to be in jail and pay compensation. 1.4 billion divided by 82k comes out to around $1,700 per person on average. That is inadequate for anyone that was sexually abused. Having said that, the vast majority of scouts were not abused and had a positive experience in the program. To force councils to deplete their cash reserves and sell off properties and increase fees to pay damages for abuses committed by pedophiles that lied to get access to kids is not right. I can understand anyone that was abused being angry and frustrated and wanting justice. Personally, the one case I came in contact with in my 30 years as a professional the guy ended up in jail where he belonged. That, at least, put the blame where it belonged. 

@Oboman ...  Your response is the common sense and very basic.  I have no issues with what you wrote.  You also missed many really good supporting arguments such as BSA did way more to keep out abusers (i.e. ineligible volunteer files) than many organizations including schools and other youth programs.  And, that the volunteer files documented case after case being handled correctly.  ... The problem is the legal interpretation.  Common sense is not legal in court. 

This case was 100% about deep pockets.  Some people will absolutely get rich from this.  Some lives will be changed.  ....  It just won't be the victims.  

[johnsch322]

11 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Perhaps...

Allow me to point out a few facts to you:

Majority of claims involved BSA employees and volunteers at the local level and the courts had already established that the LC's were directly connected to national.

For most of the abused due to their young age they had no recollections of their abusers' names. BSA would not give the troop rosters or other info to help anyone recollect.  

BSA did know what was happening hence the perversion files.

Because of threats and feelings of shame/guilt a vast majority of survivors told no one or very few people of what happened to them. Even if they had rape kits and DNA analysis where part of the future for most cases.

The BSA using "pitbull" lawyers had already lost quite a few cases or had settled with victims before the cases went to court.

BSA voluntarily went into bankruptcy as business decision because the organization knew it would not be able to survive because it had already lost so many state court cases. The bankruptcy procedures were not about guilt it was about how little the BSA, Local Councils, Charter Organizations, and insurers could get away with paying to claimants.

As a last point I ask politely that you not use how little some claimants may receive as an argument for what a bad hand the BSA was dealt. 

 

 

[Ojoman]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

You also missed many really good supporting arguments

You are correct and I know first hand the measures that were taken in the 70's and 80's to protect kids. I was in the first batch of professionals trained to deliver youth protection training to volunteers that addressed directly sexual abuse and exploitation. I had to check out several 'red flags' on volunteers with similar names and ages to people on the ineligable volunteer list which the lawyers suing us renamed the perversion files... catchy isn't it. The BSA had and has less of a problem than the public school system and virtually zero problem when all the guidelines are followed. Sadly, you wouldn't come away with that opinion if you followed the lurid media reports or watched the NBC documentary. When this was first surfaceing I read an article that concluded that the BSA had the Gold Standard in youth protection conpared to other youth agencies/activities... I still believe that. 

[Eagle1970]

3 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

When this was first surfaceing I read an article that concluded that the BSA had the Gold Standard in youth protection conpared to other youth agencies/activities... I still believe that. 

Not in the early 70's when I was abused.  I heard that my abuser (BSA Camp Employee) was just a little funny that way.  It was laughed off.  So you go ahead and preach the Gold Standard, while I will alternate between crying and laughing.  But you know what, OJO?  I'm not here to debate.   I'm here to discuss pertinent information on the settlement.  Frankly, admin, I would like to see the forum stick to the topic at hand so the forum itself does not result in additional damage to any victim/survivor.  Myself included.

[Ojoman]

19 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Allow me to point out a few facts to you:

I found the materials on line that listed the individual cases and included the documents and I did read a fair number to get an idea of how serious the suit was and yes, it was serious but none of the cases I saw included any professionals as abusers (I certainly expect there were some, just not the ones I read) but mainly volunteer adults and in some cases adults that were not even registered but affiliated through the chartered partner or as a relative of a youth member. I would change my mind if you can direct me to the documentation that shows that BSA employees were the abusers in significant numbers. 

The bottom line is that I don't deny that victims should have had their day in court. Frankly, most of them could probably have gotten a much better settlement if they had sued their local councils individually. I believe there was one case settled for 5 million dollars, perhaps adjusted later to a lower amount but the point is, you are correct that individual judgements were quite substantial. 

The problem for me is I know literally dozens of individuals whose lives were vastly improved because of Scouting and the BSA because of this suit will now fail to reach 10's and even 100's of thousands of youth that could benefit from the values/teachings and trainings along with the positive mentors in Scouting. I ran an inner city program for over 6 years that served hundreds of Scouts and Cubs and that program no longer exists. The council no longer has the resources to even properly support its traditional unit programs let alone staff and support the Scoutreach program. There was no good outcome in this for anyone but the lawyers and law firms that brought the suit. 

I'm sorry that you were a part of this dark chapter. I hope you find healing. God Bless

Edited December 5, 2023 by Ojoman

[johnsch322]

12 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

I had to check out several 'red flags' on volunteers with similar names and ages to people on the ineligable volunteer list which the lawyers suing us renamed the perversion files... catchy isn't it.

Kind of ironic that BSA had a list of known perpetrators, but they would not voluntarily release the list to survivors. Yet one of the former BSA employees is now espousing that victims/survivors should go after the actual perpetrators. Imagine if 40 years ago I had wanted the name of my perpetrators (one of them is in the files) and asked about any knowledge they may have had about incidents in the time period I was abused. They would have roadblocked me and any lawyer I had at the time. I could of filed suit asking for the knowledge and they would have fought me all the way to the state supreme court...oh wait they actually happened in 2012 in real case.  Thank you to all the lawyers that made that happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eagle1993]

13 hours ago, Ojoman said:

 That, at least, put the blame where it belonged. 

This has been debated previously and there are differing opinions.  That said, organizations are responsible for both paid staff and volunteers.  If an organization was so poorly run and organized to allow volunteers to repeatedly rape children, I do think that organization should be held accountable.  In addition, there is evidence that BSA intentionally covered this up.  While I understand society changed over time (background checks didn't exist in the past) I really struggle with the cover up that seemed to be occurring at national.

BSA could have decided to fight this in court, but they decided to declare bankruptcy instead.  I think most agree that is a poor method of working through the history of abuse and what results is far from imperfect.