fred8033

So that sounds like NOT reviving closed SOL periods. Am I wrong? I'm trying to marry that with the writing that it's a three year window of reopened liability. "3-year window will open on January 1, 2022 for claims against perpetrators, private organizations, and government for abuse from 1960-2021. The law is not * Description only indicates that a law revives against the government if the statute explicitly mentions public entities or case law clearly supports that conclusion. This list also does not include revival via delayed discovery rule. www.childusa.org | 3508 Market Street, Suite 202 | Philadelphia, PA 19104 | info@childusa.org | 215.539.1906 4 a revival law—it is a new cause of action—but it is included because it opens a window to justice for many survivors whose common law claims have expired. (2022-2024 window opening soon)."

Doesn't this table reflect chance of being sued? I'm sure there are other factors too (number of victims), but most of these councils have closed SOL liabilities. ... most ... https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WindowsRevival-Laws-for-CSA-Since-2002.pdf Closed Sam Houston Area - Texas - Closed. No revival for expired SOLs. Probably won't have one Northern Star - Minnesota - Closed. Three year revived SOL lookback window expired in 2016. Greater St. Louis - Missouri - Closed. No open lookback window Atlanta - GA - Closed. Opened window 2015 - 17. Circle Ten - Texas - Closed Michigan Crossroads - Closed - Had 90 day window for Larry Nassar claims. Then closed again. Crossroads of America - Indiana - Closed Cascade Pacific - Washington - Closed Open/Opening Denver Area - Colorado - Opening - Time window ... Not sure how to interpret their "new cause of action" law. Different than revived SOL Los Angeles - CA - Open It's not life changing for each victim ... avoiding lawyer comment ... it is still millions extracted from each LC that may not have a open fear of liability.

Amazing how I want to debate a change that is incredibly reasonable. It's not wrong. Very understandable change. I think it's because I just like short MB names. Medicine over Health Care Professional. Also, I like action-oriented MBs. First Aid preferred over Health Care Professional. Plumbing or welding over American Labor. Otherwise ... ok.

Those who guided BSA into the situation are mostly dead. ... Not all, but most. ... 1960 chief scout and executive board? 1970s? 1980s? Those from the last twenty years have been trying to find a path out. Even those from that era were trying to handle very hard situations. People want to feel better about themselves by blaming those from the past that are not here to defend themselves. I'm really, really not sure those commenting now would have done any better back then. In many cases worse. I'm not an apologist for BSA, but come on. The IVF files are evidence of BSA trying to find a way to block people where society failed.

Yes, BSA could establish a viable five year business plan. BSA as a business is an interesting beast. Most of the value are intellectual products (badges, ranks, lessons, structure). Some value is in Philmont and the high adventure camps. From what I see, BSA could drastically scale down and then slowly over time re-establish itself. BSA is not like a manufacturing company where raw material, manufacturing, product design, etc could risk it not competing in the future. I really believe BSA has a strong course back. As for local councils being sued into insolvency ... There are hundreds of councils. Less than half will probably out right fail. Those councils that do fail can be replaced quickly with new franchies. If BSA can shed debt / liability, it has an excellent chance of being a viable business.

This seems like the sausage analogy where things can be really ugly to get a result. Many LCs will walk away from the agreement if required to surrender the majority of their assets. Many LCs can use SOL protection. Many LCs might have already settled on individual claims. Many might do better with their own bankruptcy in their own state. In any case, LCs might do better simply because they continued to control the funds now. If suspect if you ask LCs to give up 50% or 75% or more of their assets, most LCs that can will walk.

@SiouxRanger ... Fundraiser app. Not the main proposal. Council approval. Not the beneficiary. ... Unless I miss read a key part. If the proposal was signed off and report was signed off, you are good. ... Even if the proposal was not signed off, there are still paths as the project is required; not the paperwork. If the scout can demonstrate develop, plan and lead, there are still paths forward. ... Fundraiser app exists to prevent things from going south.

You should be fine. Submit your paperwork. The approval form is targeting special situations where you make financial commitments or compete with the council or could represent scouting badly. I've rarely seen an Eagle project fundraiser that crosses the line. Unless it's a really special fundraiser, you should be fine.

Absolutely. If a lawyer hands in a 50/50 split of ballots (or anywhere close) than the submissions don't strongly influence the result. If the ballots all lean one way or another, it can strongly sway the vote. ... Seems like a game right out of TV Survivor.

This really feels like it needs to simplify down to BSA's bankruptcy. Get rid of the external distractions. Remove LC contributions and protections. Remove insurance company contributions and protections. Get this back to the original topic; BSA bankruptcy. How much can BSA contribute and keep running as an on-going concern. There are just too many tangents to coordinate well to any sort of closure.

Can lawyers submit the votes for the clients they represent? Or do they need signatures of the actual clients? ... and on a sarcastic note ... what if hundreds / thousands of those signatures all happen in a few minutes right before the deadline and are mailed from the same place? So that should be acceptable to preserve clients rights against a deadline right?

@RememberSchiff ... Still a really cool achievement. Be proud.

Interesting defense. Does it prove a separate entity or just further demonstrates a dysfunctional situation. For years, units would go into banks and an EIN wasn't required. Then about 15 years ago (??), it became required. So, bankers would share their computer screen with unit leaders and go to the IRS web site and create a new non-profit to get the EIN .. right at the banker's desk ... and apply for an EIN. Effectively, opening the check book created a separate independent identity. So, ownership was unclear. Registered BSA leaders were subverting the CO authority. Of the units I have led, I know at least three that did that. The church had zero access to the bank account and the church non-profit status was not directly used. Theoretically, the church owned the unit per the charter, but nothing was setup that way.

A new unit number too. Promotes a new separate identity so that previous history is previous history. Probably legally meaningless, but it would help identify that it was a different organization.

Until fairly recently, that's how most organizations worked. Vetting was seen as a competency question and weeding out evil.

I have lots of CO / unit leader related questions ... Questions triggered by our own scouting unit. We cleaned up files no one wanted to store in their own garage. We were chatting about unit history. ... etc ... QUESTION #1 ... Establishing CO liability ... This seems like it will not be easy at all for probably up to half the units? Does that sound right? Our unit doesn't have any reported cases from any time ... I believe. ... but if it did ... Reason #1 Lack of historical CO knowledge ... A few of our leaders know our unit had multiple COs. Last 20+ years under one church ... before that a fire department ... before that another church. ... I'm not sure you could find the rechartering paperwork for our unit from the 1980s as record systems changed and councils merged and threw away paper files. ... I doubt you could find alive the people that did the paperwork. Even then, I think we had years where we were chartered by one organization but met elsewhere. ... So if a case was from May 1979, I think we'd be hard pressed to "prove" who chartered the unit. It seems a large percent (at least 20% ... 40%? ... 60%?) will have a hard time "proving" who the CO was at the time of the incident. If you can't prove, does a church become liable because they met there? Or for a unit that was chartered as "parents of" met at a church??? ... My question is it seems establishing CO liability will not be automatic or easy at all. For some yes. For many no. I'm not sure the scout's own records will be evidence of proof. ... It seems like you need the paperwork with the signature of the charter org exec for that exact year. Reason #2 Accuracy of council records ... BSA previously legally penalized for fake records. Ghost units. Ghost membership. ... BSA notorious for out of date / inaccurate records. Many units had leaders on the registration that left a year or two earlier. Many had current leaders that failed to get on the registration for years. ... Until fairly recently, BSA's membership records have been bad. Reason #3 Acknowledgement of signature ... There have been cases where the paperwork was signed by someone else. I'm not sure the CO even knew they renewed the charter. I'm betting you can find historical evidence of the DE signing. In ours, I'm betting the SM may have expedited paperwork at times. QUESTION #2 ... Inheriting CO liability from another CO If a unit moves charters ... and this is very common ... does the new CO inherit liability? Reason #1 Purchasing companies inherit the liabilities of the purchased companies. Reason #2 Often material possessions are transferred when COs are changed. (bank accounts, tents, stoves, trailers, etc). QUESTION #3 ... Document retention by unit volunteers ... I fear even asking this one. Are units required to retain documents? We are "registered" BSA leaders and there are multiple lawsuits. Our unit purged files. ... No one even thought about lawsuits. But we had 10+ cardboard file boxes of annual planning, membership, advancement, rechartering, dues, finanes, Troopmaster backups, etc. We purged almost all. We said we're depending on ScoutNet and ScoutBook. Though I'm not sure I care as we were never told to keep files and we're not subject to a suit right now ... but ...

My only frustration was that most of it was passable though it will trigger debate on what is fair ... what is equitable ... not everyone agrees. The problem I had was one video then went on an ugly tangent that was introduced very late in the training and seemed to be from another course or another agenda. Overall the training was good.

Yes and no. The difference is when. 1970s/1980s/1990s yes. Since 2000, I pray not. Time Frame --> Mandatory reporting & Enlightened understanding of CSA ... Very different ... Time frame absolutely creates a big difference. Most BSA cases (we are talking about) are BEFORE the nation well understood abuse and before scout leaders became legally required to report. USA Gymnastics incidents are very recent. Late 1990/2000s/2010s. Well after CSA became understood. USA Gymnastics leaders MUST have fallen within a mandatory reporter role. Either they were responsible for running the medical program or they were educators or ???? ... ... They must have been mandatory reporters. What really surprises me is why was the Nassar allowed to be alone with underage girls during an exam. Why was a nurse not in there? Why didn't someone say practices need to reflect modern standards? If this was any clinic in my state, that would be the expected standard. This also really surprised me. The FBI (and others???) recieved the reports within the last 3 to 5 years. Very recent. ... These cases were reported after enlightenment. After laws being changed. After law enforcement has been taught to take this seriously. How did they fail !!! In previous posts, I posted about large numbers of incidents excused away / minimized / labeled boys being boys, etc. Gynastics. Hockey. etc. ... If multiple groups are not taking these reports seriuosly now, imagine how police would have processed such reports from the 1970s / 1980s. I must admit that I am shocked by recent cases when they come up. I always think we are more enlightened now. ... maybe each group needs to go thru it's pain ...

Pending request from Deck Shifflet to depose Jackie Lemanczyk about the missing appendix in the aggregator's manual.

I'm sure it will be used to mitigate penalties. Mass signing. Cutting and pasting signatures. no penalty because of time pressure. ... but ... "changing details"? ... submitting for claimants that had changed their minds? ... duplicate? (depending why? to get numbers up?) ... saying claims would be anonymous? At what point does it change from time pressure to a violation? When does circumventing clearly understood expectations become willful fraud?

I realize accusations are often more harsh than final findings. From the above, it really feels professional discipline should happen; at minimum some type of chastisement / penalty. Even "blank claims had signatures" seems like explicitly wrong. Exactly how many corners can be cut before someone is disciplined. Seems shallow to defend it with time pressure to get in under the deadline. Is there any chance this will result in professional discipline? Heck, if I was an insurance agent, I'd really want to force that to hammer down future legal shenanigans.

Agreed. Anyone can file. It does not mean you have standing or you are invested in the result. I was trying to differentiate the "as invested" and voting on a settlement. ... To be honest, it's incredibly weird to me that those voting on the result would not be already determined to be rightfully invested.

Just because you filed does not mean you have legal standing. It means the paperwork has not been resolved and decided. One decision can be that you don't have legal standing. There will definitely be cases thrown out for many reasons and probably including standing. Perhaps some were already settled once and lack standing to sue again.

Perhaps I'm just too jaded ... I'm not a lawyer. I have ready many court decisions over the years. Bad habit formed after taking college constitutional law course. From what I've seen, courts justify decisions to get a fair result as much as they interpret existing law. I could see somehow the commerce clause interpreted this whole situation effectively feels unworkable.

No. It's not that they are "as invested". It's that it's just too hard to figure out right now and the answer is being kicked down to the future to clarify. Again ... "As invested" ... Emotionally absolutely. Morally yes. The question is legal standing is not clear. That's the debate. If they don't have legal standing to sue, then no they are not as invested even if they went thru something incredibly ugly and hurtful. ... Current legal actions (voting on settlement) can't be based on possible future legislative action. The debate is can it be based on probable legal standing as it's too difficult at this exact moment. ... but ... if it's clear they don't have right to funds, they don't get a say. ... that was the reason for the comment about Uruguay votes. ... there is a ridiculous aspect to those without legal rights voting on a settlement.