T2Eagle

Together with the questionable judgment of selling to a member of the Exec Board, ticking off a sitting US Senator is rarely a smart move.  

At a minimum, if they were going to sell to the highest bidder than the bidding should have been open, public, and transparent.

It's also worth noting that they say the funds are going to be reinvested in the other camps; they are not claiming, at least in the current statement, that the fubds are going into the bankruptcy trust.

21 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Was going to post about the Osprey we saw last season down in GA. Lo and behold. Check out the article. 

https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/jekyll-replaces-osprey-platform-ahead-of-nesting-season/article_71fea0a3-d5b0-5174-855f-a6c14e98bc06.html

Nice, but you, and the paper, buried the lede, at least for folks on this forum.  "A local troop of Boy Scouts built the new stand using plans provided by Jekyll staff along with purchased and recycled lumber."

I am a bit famous, or maybe infamous, among both my family and my scouts for pointing out almost every raptor I see.  It's hard to explain to them that thanks to DDT and other pressures I spent the first 25 years of my life hiking and camping, and never saw a bald eagle or osprey, and only occasionally caught a glimpse of a hawk.  Today, I see a hawk pretty much every day in my suburban back yard, and even regularly see an eagle working the fish in the retention pond in my subdivision.  It's a marvel to me --- every time.

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

A bald eagle swooped in on our Lake Erie lawn. The 90 lb dog must have looked worth the challenge until the bird closed in.  I was relieved that all parties involved thought better of tangling. I was less concerned about the vet bill and more about the legal ramifications of "finding" a feather in my pets' maw.

Our National bird is not to be messed with.  One of my WB patrol mates had as his first job out of college working for the Ohio DNR climbing up to  each of the in state nests and banding the live chicks.  When grabbing one of the birds his chain mail glove/sleeve slipped, and he was left with a beautiful fore arm long scar --- from a chick too young to even fly yet.

At the time there were only two nesting pairs on the entire Ohio Lake Erie shore.  Today, thankfully, there's too many to count with precision.

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

ut tAnd National conceals the risk of harm to our kids.

 

Conversely, 

You cross out the section.  At summer camp I take a video of my scouts, your scout wanders into the background or is part of the group when I'm shooting.  I publish the video on my troop's website.  You sue, your legal argument is weak, in my state virtually nonexistent, but my CO is down $10,000 in legal fees before the first eye is blinked.

Same facts, but this time it's Action News that takes the exact same video and runs it as a feel good filler on the 11 o'clock news.  Both Council, and me take that video, publish it on our websites.  You sue, if you're willing to represent yourself; my CO and Council don't even bother with the $10,000 because Eyewitness News will take care of that, and you're laughed out of court because of a little thing called the US Constitution.

Same ultimate result every time: which is that there was no harm to your scout and never was, because this isn't about Youth Protection and never was.  It was always only about commercial use of an image and cutting down on silly lawsuits.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Exhibit 4, page 27. Don't know if there's been an update. 

https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims.pdf

 

Thanks, I took a look at that.  It has three data sets: year, council, CO, but it doesn't correlate them.  So it works if your CO is uniquely named.  Mine is a Catholic CO, and there's no way of knowing which "St. John Parish" has been named. 

2 hours ago, PACAN said:

Thanks.  I wonder if all CO that have a case currently under litigation have been contacted explaining their liability.  

 

That's a good question.  I asked if my CO had been named in any of the claims and was told no.  I should have asked if we would have been told if we had been named.

I didn't do a deep dive into the claims to see how well a CO could be identified, maybe someone who has examined them more closely could answer whether a CO could find out for themselves if they went looking.

23 minutes ago, PACAN said:

@Skeptic....depends on who gets the bill.    Still hearing that each CO will be presented a bill.  Estimated 3000 UMC COs  still standing so that's 10,000 each.  I asked one of my Methodist church sponsored units friend whose units just went out of business.  He was fairly sure not many UMC CO's would continue if presented with a fee like that.  So hopefully the UMC has deep pockets.   On the other side, it is good to see they feel the BSA still fits in their youth programs.

Other COs will leave as well especially the smaller ones or "friends of" types if they get a bill.

This mess continues!  😒

 

So the "bill" we're talking about is not related, at least directly, to whether a CO continues as a CO.  COs aren't going to be given a statement and told pay this or you won't be allowed to be a CO any more.

You pay into the fund as a means of protecting yourself against things that already happened.  Deciding not to continue as a CO doesn't keep you from being sued for events that already happened in the past.  Whether to pay and whether to continue as a CO are unrelated decisions.

54 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

Are LC's in your area communicating what is going on with bankruptcy and scouts being abused in your council to new parents and prospective scouts?

I feel like LC's in my area are not. I would like to raise awareness to protect future scouts. I know YPT will get better in the future but now parents need to know their child may not be safe in the present BSA. 

Thinking of renting billboards by the council office and camp highlighting the amount of abuse cases and need to be cautious. 

In what way are scouts not safe in the current BSA?  My LC has 2-3 claims filed that are within the SOL, which means sometime i the last two decades.  These are of course untested claims so it's not even clear they reveal anything.

Improvements will hopefully make things better, but there is very little evidence that scouts today are meaningfully unsafe in scouting.  Not perfect doesn't mean not safe.

17 minutes ago, yknot said:

I hope that is not a real practice because it would be yet another way that youth protection in the organization is being subverted. 

How so and by who? The release has nothing to do with Youth Protection it is all about commercial use of a person's image.  Even if you cross out that section it's a long way from there to being able to be compensated by BSA for incidentally walking into the background of a photo that's later published.  Whoever told you there were ways around not having the release was right, depending on the state there are lots of ways around that.  And as I mentioned, it would be even further a stretch to be able to take action against a regular person who posts it to Facebook, and virtually nothing at all that could be done about someone who puts that picture in their own scrapbook.   

We've had this come up in our unit.  Oddly, what drives this the most is the bit about not being compensated for use of the image, sound, etc.

From a practical point of view there's no way for BSA or councils to avoid taking someone's picture if they're taking pictures at all.  If someone really wants their child's photo to not be used, especially for reasons like MattR talks about above, they can talk to council after an event and try to get any picture of their kid cropped out.  But if you think about things like summer camp videos, or even just publicity photos for a press release or something similar, it would be virtually impossible to identify every kid caught in a frame and then track down their parents for individual releases.

You have pretty much no rights to keep someone from photographing you, and you have only some control over people publishing those photos.  Most of that control comes in the form of being able to demand compensation in the event that the picture is being used specifically for a commercial purpose like advertising for summer camp.

If someone, anyone, captures you or your kid in a picture and then posts it on say Facebook you have no real right to stop that or demand that it be taken down. 

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Using this thread out of respect for our moderators. 

Looked for updates this morning and saw ...  @MYCVAStory postd:  "TCC will be holding a Town Hall on Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 8 pm (Eastern) to discuss the latest ..."

I had a feeling that I'm in an episode of Twight Zone and Rod Sterling was talking.  It's Monday.  That's Thursday.   ... It's why bankruptcy takes so long?  

• Feb 18, 2020 -- BSA filed bankruptcy
• Feb 14, 2022 -- Today

At end of today ...

• elapsed days 728
• elapsed weeks 104
• elapsed months 24 (in a few more days)
• elapsed years 2 (in a few more days)

Add ten years of covering IVF file coverage (2012 release).  Add more for other lawsuit discussions (membership, GSA, religious, etc).  Starting with 1998 Supreme Court case.  My whole scouting era has been controversy and legal issues.  ...  For most of BSA's 110 years, I can't believe there was much controversy at all.  Just the last 20. 

You're forgetting about decades of argument/discussion/problems with and caused by racial segregation/desegregation/integration etc.  Plus whatever prompted the changes in 1972 and then the backlash and response to those changes, etc., etc.

A large, nationwide organization is going to contain and reflect the large nationwide problems and changes of its given time.  

Welcome to the forums.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't think any process would be last minute.  There is probably going to need to be some lead time to allow a background check.

True last minute is rare, I was thinking more about the number of times where at the Wednesday night before a campout we count heads and realize we need one more person, or we need a sub for someone who had previously committed and now has to back out.  

24 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

What would that look like? I know nothing about these processes and fees.

Current process is 1) completing a full application, 2)getting it signed/approved by Committee Chair, 3) get it signed and approved by Chartered Organization Rep., 4) Get it to council office along with printed copy of YP training certificate, 5) pay $45 registration fee, 6) council has to obtain background check, 7)  Scout Exec has to review application & background check, 8 approved application has to be entered into council system, 9) unit has to be notified that volunteer now approved and registered.

Often times, when we're talking about a previously unregistered parent attending camp for the first time, it can either be a last minute decision where we need more leaders to drive and cover the activity, or at best it's maybe two weeks out when plans for both troop and volunteer family are finalized.

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Here is the Cub Scout carve out:

Cub Scout Programs (Overnight): Cub Scout parents or legal guardians taking part in an overnight program with their own child are not required to register as leaders but must review the BSA’s Barriers to Abuse with a unit leader before the activity. Cub Scout youth can only attend with and must be supervised by their own parent or legal guardian at all times, or a registered adult member of the BSA who is attending with their child. A registered leader must be present at any time the parent or legal guardian is with other youth members other than their own. Cub Scout camping is limited to a Local Council’s designated locations with appropriate facilities and Barriers to Abuse materials will be prominently posted at all locations for such programs.

This was the area that really concerned me when talking about the 72 hour rule changing to full registration/backgrounding.  

I hope they're able to develop a way for adults to be registered more quickly and inexpensively.  My troop can handle having to register and background anybody camping with the troop, but I know that smaller and less well resourced troops will struggle with this, especially if the process remains as cumbersome and costly as it currently is.  

Quite a document.  The things that jump out to me are the attempts at transparency and accountability.  I've thought for a while that BSA has for too long only answered to itself, and that lack of accountability has led to insular thinking and poor practices.

33 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

How can an attorney pledge an asset that is jointly held or otherwise encumbered without written consent? Um. Did BSA not have that document on file somewhere? Did the firm that did the asset appraisal not know? Due diligence? What about the professionals on the survivor side who rummaged through the assets? Something's hinky. Pah-lease. Maybe this is bogus. Meh. More trauma, er, drama.

I forgot to add to my post that they didn't attach the supposed agreement.  Very few agreements truly prevent any alienation.  Clearly there are various levels of value to the paintings, I've purchased a couple of prints of "The Scoutmaster" and not from BSA.  Likely whoever buys the paintings buys them with whatever encumbrances there may be.  

49 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

More objections are coming in.  Sounds like they are due in 15 mins.

a6eadea4-101c-4c41-b171-e4659b3d8f08_8748.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

I found the above interesting.  This is a claim that BSA does not own the Norman Rockwell artwork and therefore, cannot give it to the trust.

Not quite that they don't own it, rather that they share ownership of it in some way with Brown and Bigelow, a publishing company.  The filing goes on to say that there is a 1991 written agreement in which BSA acknowledged the joint ownership AND agreed that neither party could assign its ownership interest to anyone without the permission of the other party.

If this is true it is another example, in my opinion, of how both sloppy, arrogant, and presumptuous BSA has operated all these years.  They just never felt like they were ever going to have to answer to anyone but themselves about anything.

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Perhaps the wrong thread...

That is a very useful answer, but not entirely clear or it doesn't really answer the question.  Or are you saying, yes the funds in the trust can be used to finance the legal costs to sue the insurance companies to pay out on the insurance claims.  Does that move affect agreements that were contingent and now become a fee-for-service drawing cash down?  

I'm just wondering ... say the fees and contingent services share pulls out 40% of $200m.  Now you are at $120m.  Of that $120m, would a check be sent to pay the victims?  Or, is it all re-invested to sue the insurance companies?

I have no right to the funds.  But, there is one result that would make me disgusted.  I would cringe if anyone is paid their contingent share of an award without the victim actually getting their share too.  I would cringe if the contingent monies are paid out, but then the victim share is used to finance the lawsuits against the insurance companies.  Insurance rights does not equal cash.  It will cost tens of millions or more to settle those claims.

If the toggle happened, I'm curious how the finances of the next legal level happens.  

So, not having read the plan closely enough to speak specifically to it, I'll try to answer this generically.

How much, and how, and when a lawyer representing a claimant gets paid is between the claimant and the lawyer.  Some law firms have a lot of clients and probably use the same fee agreement for all of them.  But there are (probably) hundreds of firms who have clients in this case.  Not all of them are charging 40%, they may not all even be contingent, there are certainly some folks who are attorneys and representing themselves, there are almost certainly folks who aren't attorneys representing themselves.

Whenever the trust starts sending out checks, presumably some claimants will have their lawyer do all the legwork and have the full payment sent to the lawyer, in which case the lawyer will then figure out their fees and send the client the balance.  But also presumably some claimants will get their check directly, and then have to turn around and cut a check to their lawyer.  The mechanics of all this is probably contained in the fee agreements between lawyers and clients.

It is very much not the Trust's responsibility to make sure that the lawyers get paid their contingency fees.

All of the above is about fees based on the work done for individual claimants, and paid after the trust is funded and starts paying victims.  Because this is a bankruptcy, there are also legal fees that may be related to and necessitated by the bankruptcy process.  They'll be paid as part of the process.  I don't know enough to know whether they're paid by BSA before it funds the trust or if they're paid from the trust after it is funded.  The TCC's lawyers fall into this category, and if memory serves, the Coalition lawyers want to fall into this category, and that is under dispute. 

Hope this helps, there are better informed legal minds than mine on here.  I hope they chime in to clean my thoughts up.

23 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Not sure what thread this goes in.  It is a question from months ago.  If BSA only bankruptcy put cash in trust for victims, is that money then dedicated to go to victims?  Or can it be used by victim advocates to fund a next level of lawsuits?  I realize the lawyer side could be used as needed.  I was wondering though ... say if it was $200m in the trust ... would at least $100m go as checks to the victims?  Or could it all be consumed to fund the next level of individual lawsuits?

 

In broad strokes, presumably one of the assets assigned to the trust would be BSA's rights to insurance coverage.  Part of the trust's responsibility would be to collect those monies, certainly suing the insurers could be part of that.

It would be very unusual, probably not allowed, if the trust were set up to sue other entities like LCs.

That sounds much more reasonable.  Hope the other troop makes a similarly reasonable choice, even if it's not the same camp.

22 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

What is the basis of the objection or another place holder?

The constitutional objection is that claimants are losing their property interest in a law suit against the non debtor parties without having any chance in court, ie they are being denied due process.

Their other big objection is that the bankruptcy statute doesn't allow the releases.

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

Yes as in G2SS. I'm curious though how many COs allow even adults to do so.  Ours doesn't. Chainsaws yes; wood chippers no. We do it at council camp properties simply because they have no idea but it's not allowed on any of their church properties or campgrounds where we do service projects. It's a huge liability risk. 

What would they base the idea of a "huge liability" on.  Is there data somewhere that says using a chipper is more likely to lead to injury than a chainsaw?  Some specific insurance rider that indicates using one necessitate a higher premium?

Most of the time that I hear people talk about liability they barely understand what the term really means, and it's almost always based on some gut instinct rather than real information.

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I'd recommend stopping this. Any incidents would not be covered by any BSA insurance. 

To be clear, it's the youth who cannot do this.  There's no prohibition I can see for adults using a chipper.