HelpfulTracks

I did not see this as I was making my last post. Delete, hide or do whatever you feel is best. I'll drop the subject.

I know who my lawyers are and what their job is. When needed, I hire good ones, but I am under no illusion they are doing it because they like me or believe in my position, nor do I care. I hire them because they win, they represent me because they can make money. Just because I don't like them does not mean I don't see a value in using them. I don't like politicians either, but I still vote.

Umm. This is not directed at any specific lawyer or even this case. I don't care for lawyers, even the ones that represent me. But when any lawyer starts poking another lawyer in the eye about what he makes and also claims to be in it for the good of their client I am suspicious. Especially if he is taking the same cut, regardless of his experience or skills. If he really wants me to think about believing he is in for something other than the money, then do something like this on billable hours, or better yet at cost of his staff and filing fees or even better yet pro bono. Kosnoff may be the best lawyer in the history of lawyers and is worth every penny, but I find it more than a little disingenuous to say other lawyers are getting too much when he is getting basically the same, perhaps even more.

No malice or sour mood intended. I was just stating a post can be named as you wish, it's just up to the mods if that name is left as initially created. ( I left out they can just rename it also) FYI - My team won convincingly. 😀

I don't want to call it a dictatorship (its not), but it is not a democracy either. You can name a thread you start whatever you wish, but the Mods can close it, change it or delete it or hide it.

A “No” reply would have been easy to deal with. A “Yes”, I would ask if your state’s laws recognize him as a guardian. Since this is about tenting, I don’t envy you having to determine this one, as the Cub in question may well look at him as a father figure and might not understand why he (the Cub himself) is being treated differently.

Does he reside in the same home as the child?

I love many of the Black Eagle flaps. Hard to find and expensive on EBay.

Welcome to the forum. I have a couple of my original lodges old flaps that are in similar condition. Since I am in a different lodge I cannot wear them, so I have never considering "reviving" them. Also, they are some what rare and I don't want to risk damaging them further. However, you might try to use an iron on a low setting, maybe with some parchment paper over the patch. The old flaps did not have the plastic backing so once the threads start to shrink from washing, I am not sure anything will help. If your the idea is to wear a historical flap from your youth, try asking around. Every lodge has thread heads that are avid collectors. Chances are you can find the identical patch from one of them, though they may wince if they know you are going to actually wear it, lol. Of course, I am assuming you are still in your original lodge. If not you should only be wearing the flap of the lodge you are currently registered and dues paid. Good luck

Thanks! I glossed over the "serve parts" part.

Half crazy? That is generous. I think they must be full on 100% crazy to take on a moderator role for this site.

New Jersey's five councils, serving 54,500 youths with assets totaling $56 >>> John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million >>> John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says.....settlement .......with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million. Okay - i understand the New Jersey numbers - 44/56 = 78% But the Penn numbers, 58/23 = 252% - Two and a half times their total assets. Which would be impossible to accomplish. Am I misreading something, is there a typo, has new math confused me so badly I can no longer do old math?

I can say anecdotally, I have heard people make the assumption if someone is made ineligible that it is because of CSA, even in cases where there is public knowledge of some other crime, like assault. I think that is mainly because most people had no idea the IVF existed prior to the CSA stories broke, so that is their only knowledge/perception of what IVF is, So it is not surprising if someone finds out that an individual is made ineligible they make that assumption, unless they are directly familiar with that particular case. What is more alarming, I have seen people leave scouting for personal reasons (not related to any IVF violation) and at times people assume that it MUST be CSA. Even when in reality, it might be financial reasons, health reasons or just fed up with BSA for some reason. People have a tendency to fill in the blanks and usually with worst case assumptions. If by "reported" you mean the media. I have little doubt that early reports included non-CSA in their numbers. As I stated earlier, the file dump I saw was inclusive. However, I think the numbers we see generally have been cleaned up to only include CSA. Frankly, using a larger number may have better shock value, but could backfire if people realize that the number was inflated by non-CSA violations. Some would just assume the whole thing was bogus and move on. If it were me, I would want the number to be accurate so as to prevent anyone from making that assumption. I am sure the legal teams would say the same.

True. Also, the The "Perversion" files was not used by BSA, at least not officially, and I doubt it was condoned even casually, since it covers a broad range of violations. I am not sure if that category naming list previously was used or if that is a breakdown of violation types that was added by external sources. But if it is BSA categories, it is obviously how the name Perversion Files became the public nomenclature. Given the list of violations it covers, you can easily see how CSA was about one on five violations in the IVF (again an educated estimate).

Without having quoted the previous post, I am not sure who you are referencing, But I did estimate the 80%. I got that number from several places. Initially when the IVF files were made public by the press this list contained more than CSA. The one originally saw (I think it was the LA Times, but I could be wrong) was much broader than the one I have found recently (it is in the LA Times).. Looks like they cleaned with file up to only include CSA as well as adding some additional PDF elements for the CSA case they list. It makes sense they would clean it up as the point of the article was CSA and the entire file dump made it more time consuming to get through all the other issues to find CSA cases. That also is in sync with my personal experience having to deal with some cases. And my personal experience has been validated by others, both volunteer and professionals. The "other" offenses cover a broad range of issues. They range from internal BSA issues like lying or omitting information on BSA applications, repeated or flagrant violations of YP or GSS that endangers scouts. And by YP in this case I mean violations short of being accused of CSA, like repeatedly ignoring one-on-one restrictions. It would also include things like misconduct, frequent or flagrant use of foul language or obscene gestures, being degrading towards scouts or adults, racist acts or language etc. External issues would include things like felonies, assault outside of Scouting, white collar crimes, fraud (even short of criminal prosecution), threats made. The IVF is not about CSA alone, and never has been (to my knowledge). It captures anything that would get a scout or scouter declared ineligible to participate.