Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by HelpfulTracks

  1. 1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

    I believe if you don't look closely at the motivation of individual lawyers their experience in this arena that you are not doing anyone any good.  I do not know who your lawyers are but maybe you should consider changing representation.

    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.

    7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    In my view, the single operative point and only relevant presupposition to your post is, “I don't care for lawyers, even the ones that represent me.” Why? They charge a legal contingency on outcome. Solution? Go it alone and never hire one again, if you dislike them (us) so. And, to be consistent, never associate yourself with anyone who works on commission. Don’t buy a new car, sell or buy a house, hold or purchase additional insurance coverage or work with other than a fee-based investment advisor, to name a few. I can come up with a more comprehensive list when you need it. Easy peasy. Let me know when you’re ready to engage the conversation with “clean hands and a pure heart.” I’ll be right here.

    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. 

  2. 23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    I beg to differ, as to there being no distinction between their respective “cuts,” as you say. This is an attorney with decades of experience representing Scouting child sexual abuse victims. Those other folks are “Lemme get on the gravy train” Johnnies come lately. Night and day difference. Let’s find out how much experience those who used aggregators have. Being funded by outside money, which a number of judges who do mass tort cases do not like at all, cannot be equated to Tim Kosnoff’s history and experience. I have said this repeatedly here, just so I’m not accused of defending him simply because we have concurring opinions. He doesn’t need this case or this money. The other guys want the money and need it to pay off the loan sharks, thus their quick settlements and race to the bottom. 

    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. 

  3. 4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    Good grief you guys. Did all your teams lose this weekend and your dog pooped on the bed to make it worse? Just a joke, for Pete’s sake. 

    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.  😀

  4. 4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    I’m fuzzy on the forum law, but I don’t think that can be a fiat decision by the Moderators. I move for a vote to so name it. Do I have a second? 

    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. 

  5. 1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

    EBay is probably your best/easiest bet, however, if your lodge is having a tradeoree, you might find someone there with a much better deal than on eBay.  My original lodge was Black Eagle and they have put out a lot of neat patches this century - had the same patch for 50 years before that.  I got about $100 in patches (eBay prices) for $50 at our tradeoree.  Guys travel from long distances to trade.  

    As mentioned above, wearing it on your uniform is ok if you are a dues paying member of that lodge.  If not, then you need to ask yourself why you want to wear it.  

    I love many of the Black Eagle flaps.

    Hard to find and expensive on EBay. 

  6. 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

  7. 7 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    Yes. It is a word problem worthy of the SAT.

    Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million.

    John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million

    so the two PA councils proposed total is 58-44 million = $14 million

    14 / 23

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

  8. 3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

    New Jersey's five councils, serving 54,500 youths with assets totaling $56 million are being asked to contribute $14.2 million toward a $600 million council share of the proposed $1.9 billion national settlement. 

    Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million are being asked to contribute another $4 million.

    John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million.

    The seven councils serving New Jersey residents have remained uniformly silent on the settlement. Their CEOs have followed national instructions to focus on each council's "business as usual," sympathizing with abuse victims but offering little if any information on the settlement's local impact.

    However, councils in New York, Iowa and Arizona have begun telling their memberships what their share of the settlement will be, and how it will be financed.


    The assessments are not divided proportionally according to a state's share of the suits. Northern New Jersey Council has 525 abuse suits, or 42.5% of the state's 1,235 total claims, but is contributing only $3.06 million, or 21.6% of the total assessment for the five councils. 

    Source links with more details




    1 hour ago, RandomScouter said:

    So, if I read this right, John Lucas says the NJ & PA councils should be giving over 70% of their total assets?  Will that leave them with 2 years' worth of operating funds?  (I thought that was part of it.)  I would be surprised if most non-profits could survive after giving that much.

    There are many opinions about what percentage of assets should be contributed.  Northern New Jersey Council's proposed contribution is over 30% of their total net assets.  For those who say LCs should give 'til it hurts, I'm willing to bet it's gonna hurt.


    1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

    By his math,  NJ councils 78.6%, 2 PA councils that serve NJ 61%.


    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?

  9. 5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

    The larger question remains; how many of the "reported" files from the IVF are actually in the categories other than the two that might actually cover abuse?  There is a strong likelyhood that many of the files the media, and others continue to enumerate "do not" fall into the "abuse" categories.  But, it that suggestion is made, the individual is immediately labeled in some manner as accepting of CA.  Of course, the average person if they see a story, it is likely one written with the intent to ignore all the peripheral things, and to simply dramatize the worst elements.  That is our world in this country, and too many do not have the ability, or so it seems, to separate the chafe from the wheat.


    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. 

    • Upvote 1
  10. 27 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    Clearly for purposes of the sexual abuse lawsuit(s) going back into the 1990s, some of these were more relevant than others. The "Perversion" files, while the biggest subset, were not the ONLY subset, however people mislabel ALL the IVF files as the "perversion" files.

    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).

  11. 10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    80% non CS

    Do you have a source for that estimate?  That 80% of the IVF names are NOT CSA seems to imply that the 80% are what? Victims of political repression? Or what else?

    The next question is if BSA has two IVF lists, those based on CSA, and "Other" (political, troublesome, ???)

    Have the non-CSA IVF files been released through the Oregon case?

    Or are they still hidden?







    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.

    • Thanks 2
  12. 10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    Another poster waxed eloquent about how he relies heavily on council staff and how they perform wonderfully.

    I do not doubt his experiences.

    In my council, we only need the camp Ranger and a full-time Assistant camp Ranger, and someone in the Scout office to handle recharters.

    The rest are worthless to my Unit.

    Only in the last 10 years did lower level Council folks asked me to re-engage.  I did at functional levels where something is ACCOMPLISHED, not at Board levels where everyone gets mediocre meal four times a year for $1,000.

    That would be me. And yes, I do not want to have to do the many functional jobs I have had over the years without them. They have saved me many hours a month when it comes to working as a Commissioner, Training Chair and training staff, contingent leader, OA adviser, etc. 

    Nor would I want to try to deal with the recruiting elements. The DE's have a hard enough time coordinating to get into schools to recruit. I know some of the schools around here would not be willing to allow multiple volunteers to come in and recruit, especially several different volunteers on several different nights. 

    Not to mention the fundraising they do that pays for the other staff I relay on like the rangers, registrars, program people, communications and printing. As well as not having to pay significantly more for Summer camp, or having scholarships for youth to attend Summer Camp, Jambos and high adventure. 

    I envy those councils who do not need their DE's, I would truly like to know how y'all manage to coordinate volunteers to do all those things the DE's do. 

  13. 10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    There are two issues here: 


    1.  Ex Post Facto is changing the definition of a law TODAY to make actions prior to TODAY, criminal.  So a year ago, I cut my grass to 2 inches in height-perfectly legal, then.  Now, a year later, cutting my grass to 2" a year ago is a crime!  I had no way to avoid being guilty as I cannot predict what the legislature will make illegal, years after the event.  The Constitutional issue is that citizens are entitled to know at the time they take action whether or not it is criminal.

    This is completely different from:

    2.  "Years ago, I committed a crime.  It was a crime on the books when I did it.  The statute of limitations was 10 years and I managed to avoid capture and charging past the 10 year date."  Well, this issue is whether the statute of limitations can be changed for crimes already committed.  This is not an Ex Post Facto issue.  In my state, "no one has a vested interest in statutes of limitation for civil matters."  I know little of criminal law, and the answer could be different for all the several states.


    Just to help clarify...

    All true. But Ex Post Facto was what SCOTUS used (in part) to strike down retro extensions of SOL for criminals statutes in 2003 for 1993 California law 

  14. 1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

    21, not 26, but 21 is still past the OMG that is too many districts level! It says they serve 36,000 scouts. Really? That seems crazy too. It blows my mind that the tools and other items of the BSA can scale from councils with 300 scouts to councils with 36,000 scouts. 

    Not sure how many districts they have but I have been told that the council for Houston had 60K  scouts (pre-Covid), I think it is the largest, but not sure. Chigcago, LA, NYC have to be pretty large too. Though I have also been told NYC council is broken into councils by borough, so not sure how they count out. 

    And yes, it is a pretty elastic system, but then again the base unit is 6-8 scouts. Not a bad program structure, I would say. 

  15. 7 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    I have seen postings where casually it is said you really can not eliminate it.  It feels like the posters are saying we must expect some abuse.

    I think it is plan for the best, be prepared for the worst. 

    I  believe anyone here has the goal of zero abuse. Its what we plan to achieve and strive to succeed. 

    But, I have never made a plan of any type that I did not expect that their would be something go wrong, no matter how hard I try. 

    I think it is more the expectation some how the plan will have failures no matter how careful we are. Which I personally think is helpful, if one is TOO confident in their plan, they are less diligent. 

    • Like 1
  16. 5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    Any time a scout was exposed to or imposed upon something of a sexual nature that was unwanted by the scouter. That would include being given pornography where it was given for the pleasure of the giver (wanting to see the reaction). I cannot get graphic here.

     I think what some are saying is with youth, one must also consider the parents wants. 

    While the youth may not be opposed to receiving pornography, the parent almost certainly would be. The same goes for language and others. So while a youth may be abused by your definition, the parent of said youth may see it differently.

  17. 2 hours ago, elitts said:

    In a world where a large chunk of the US population still doesn't think kids should be taught anything about sex other than "Don't do it" I am certain there's parents who would assume the ONLY way such a conversation could happen would be if their "precious innocent child" was having knowledge of sex forced upon them by another youth.  This is how we get prosecutions for rape when 13-15 year olds are having consensual sex.

    It is quite amazing what some parents think their children don't know, won't do, won't think about. And not just on a sexual level. I have had parents tell me "my baby would never". Often times their baby is among the worst offenders. 

    Admittedly, I approached those "talks" with my own children with a bit of trepidation, but I had them none the less. Sex, drugs, alcohol et al.  My children were horrified their dad was talking to them about such subjects. I often wondered how much of what I said sunk in, so I will on occasion revisit the subjects. My oldest is in college and I still have those talks with him, though he cringes less now that he has been exposed to more of the world. 

  18. 3 hours ago, Eagledad said:

    Patrol Method has proven itself over 100  years all over the world. To break that up because of a very broad blanket statement that that 50% of the BSA abuse cases are from youth would be ridiculous.



    2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Proven, according to whom?

    What outside researcher has EVER done a review of it to see if it really works? BSA has refused any such review and , per Johnson, even stopped internal reviews.

    This is what I cannot wait for in terms of the TCC plan. An outside, external evaluation of the BSA YPT plan.

    I suspect what is going to be found out is that the BSA YPT system isn't all that great but BSA has convinced itself and others it is based on wishful thinking.

    The Patrol Method is a mechanism to teach responsibility, leadership, team work, character an more. You will not find any empirical evidence of its success or failure, because there are no empirical measures. In fact empirically measuring a patrol based on milestones that can be checked off, is almost certainly a recipe to fail. 

    YP is a mechanism to protect and safe guard our youth. Empirical measurement is much easier as failures are glaring. 

    These are two separate mechanisms with different success factors and different measures of success. 

    Because one is broken, does not mean the other is. 

    If you believe Patrol Method IS the problem, the it should be easy enough to prove, as most troops don't really use the Patrol Method anymore. 

    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...