Jump to content

Order of the Arrow

Discussions for OA Members and those interested in Scouting's Honor Society. Also includes a private sub-forum for OA Members only.


Subforums

  1. Western Region

    Sections, Lodges and local discussions

    39
    posts
  2. NOAC

    Been to NOAC? Heading there? Chat about the Order's bi-annual gathering

    158
    posts
  3. Central Region

    Sections, Lodges and local discussions

    136
    posts
  4. Northeast Region

    Sections, Lodges and local discussions

    50
    posts
  5. Southern Region

    Sections, Lodges and local discussion

    154
    posts

566 topics in this forum

    • 20 replies
    • 3.1k views
  1. Ordeal Bread

    • 14 replies
    • 3k views
    • 48 replies
    • 3k views
  2. OA for adult leader

    • 6 replies
    • 3k views
  3. OA forum access 1 2

    • 22 replies
    • 2.9k views
  4. OA election nights 1 2

    • 22 replies
    • 2.9k views
    • 29 replies
    • 2.9k views
    • 29 replies
    • 2.9k views
  5. Lodge Flaps

    • 14 replies
    • 2.9k views
    • 13 replies
    • 2.9k views
  6. OA sash/MB sash 1 2

    • 27 replies
    • 2.9k views
    • 34 replies
    • 2.9k views
  7. OA Grace

    • 5 replies
    • 2.8k views
  8. Huh??????? 1 2

    • 23 replies
    • 2.8k views
  9. OA Advice Sought 1 2

    • 28 replies
    • 2.8k views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • I suggest using Program Features with new scouts troops to provide a framework. The PLC can learn the skills be fore the meeting and they can be the ones to teach the troop. This takes more time but allows for a more scout led troop, SM should learn the skills on his own and be ready to help if needed.
    • First I don’t think you totally understand contingency cases. If there is no award the lawyer gets nothing. Also there are quite a few lawyers with 10 to 20 clients. If 20 clients received 10k each should the lawyer worked for 500 to 1k? Also all claimants signed on their own volition a contract which specifies what portion of any award that they may get in writing or they could have represented themselves. So they had options.  You might not like outlandish awards but that is the purpose of insurance. You can criticize the system but it’s a little late to use that excuse when the system is being used by the BSA, LC’s CO’s and insurance companies to limit the payouts to circumvent the state courts by using the bankruptcy.  The most outlandish part is that some states have time limits to file claims for Child Sexual Abuse. This is also a loophole that the actual perpetrators have to use in almost all states.  As for governments and family members the abuse acts in the BSA were not committed by these entities. Families places the care of their young in the hands of the BSA and the BSA and the LC’s etc etc we’re negligent.  No one is trying to rewrite history as fair as abuse victims are concerned. The only entity who tried to rewrite history is the BSA who hid from and fought against, and destroyed some of the files. 
    • Great! Once again, not a single legal argument or one pertaining specifically to the bankruptcy court proceedings. Just your FEELING and EMOTIONS that this is unjust or unfair. Says who? Most of the perpetrators are dead. Those that have been found and alive are being prosecuted based on what has come out from the bankruptcy. Again: absolutely NONE of this in any way addresses BSA's legal liability. As a matter of fact, there is a provision in the bankruptcy plan to address this. The example used was if a priest who was the scoutmaster of a unit abused a scout, how much was the fault of the parish and how much the fault of scouting? Etc. Again, and again, and again, and again, I have to repeat myself. The point is NOT a failure to report the abuse, NOT a failure to prosecute the abuse, and what is this conspiracy theory about "paid off public officials"? The LEGAL point is that BSA, through its negligence, allowed the abuse to occur IN THE FIRST PLACE. It doesn't matter if AFTER THE ABUSE TOOK PLACE did or did not report it, did or did not seek to prosecute, did or did not get a conviction. I know I've told you this at least twice and others have as well. Over and over and over you think that BSA is being unfairly punished for failure to report. It isn't. In fact, even if BSA had reported, had gotten convictions, etc. BSA is STILL LIABLE for the abuse happening IN THE FIRST PLACE.
    • First, the amount paid to the lawyers is simply obscene, and they do not deserve it.  And that is a problem of our court system.  Limits on lawyers should exist, period; and emotion should not be allowed to overly skew it. More importantly, again from my own perspective as a rational person, the jury payouts on many emotionally weighted cases is outlandish and again would not happen in other parts of the western world.  Our legal system is broken and allows those types of awards, even though they are attempts to fix something that cannot be fixed. More importantly, the actual perpetrators again are not being brought to justice in most cases, and there is little effort, or so it seems, to do so.  IF this were to be a balanced procedure, then they would publicly vet all the claims, which might in itself bring some interesting developments.  They would also take into consideration who, beyond the BSA, swept things around and under.  How many government jurisdictions chose to NOT do what needed to be done?  How many family decisions played into those results in a different era of society?   IF BSA is being held responsible for bad decisions, some perhaps forced by uncooperative families or obdurate of paid off public officials, what do you suggest be done?  It is still an impossible scenario, and it just shows the foolishness of trying to rewrite history and fix societal problems from the past in todays environment.  But how dare I suggest such outlandish things.  
    • Great that you can. That, however, has precisely zero (0) with the LEGAL arguments at play here, namely that BSA through its negligence allowed TENS OF THOUSANDS of boys to be abused. That those victims of BSA's negligence are allowed compensation (in states with an open statute of limitations at least) and Those victims of BSA's negligence in closed states are never, ever going to approve a plan that leaves them with $0. I really do not appreciate this comment. I've nothing to gain here: I am not a victim. I don't even know that any victims have "avarice" unless you want to define that word to mean "anyone who seeks compensation they are entitled to law." As claiming I have "hate" or "demons", I REALLY do not appreciate that accusation.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...