elitts

9 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

We are a bit of a mixed state.   No look back window.  Some are pushing, but the leaders who previously support d reforms are not answering questions.  The Catholic Church is fighting hard against changes as are private schools. 
 

I kind of thought this drive to pass look-backs would fade fairly quickly when people started connecting the dots and imagined what could happen when school districts and state governments started getting sued.  It's only a matter of time until someone tries suing a state government over "campus rapes allowed by permissive, state-run schools, who abdicated their duty to protect their students".

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

2) A single case of CSA against many LCs could sink or nearly sink the ship, asset base depending. $18+/-M is the high water mark for judgments, as far as I know.

I have to think that most LCs have insurance policies of their own to protect against losses due to lawsuits. (I know mine does)  I mean, they are poorly enough run that I can easily believe some Councils don't, because they thought "they were covered by national", but I have to hope that would be a rarity.

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Here is a link to what the TCC feels that an abuse is worth for negotiating purposes. 

Boy Scouts of America: Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones (pszjlaw.com)

Couple that with the table 

Unique and Timely Abuse Claim Count by Local Council & Allegation Rows 1-264 (in white) list Abuse Claims against individual Local Councils. Rows 265-1,267 (in blue) list Abuse Claims against more than one Local Council

Contained in:

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf

And now we can see how the TCC came to value the abuse claims at 103 Billion

I'm curious to know if the awards will be adjusted for time for those people who were abused decades ago.  It would seem like they probably should, but who knows.

Also, if we are talking about awards in the situation of a bankruptcy, it would seem like a more realistic target would be the roughly $290k that the Catholic Church has averaged.

2 hours ago, Muttsy said:

A cram down has never been done in a sexual abuse bankruptcy and she won't do it here.  

Yes, This has been repeated ad nauseam by another poster.  The problem with this little saying is that we aren't talking about some mountain of past precedent spanning the last 50 years that would need to be set aside; rather, pretty much all you are talking about are a couple dozen Catholic Church bankruptcies since 2004. Given the scope of this one, it would be a pretty easy thing for a judge to say "This is a functionally different situation than the past CSA bankruptcies".

Unless of course you can point out some situations where bankruptcy judges actually denied discharge when an agreement couldn't be reached?

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Yes, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Statistics such as this that include girls can't be used for comparison to abuse that occurred in boy scouts because it has with a few exceptions largely been committed against boys in our organization. While anecdotally believed to be underreported, the sexual abuse rate among boys is a fraction of what it is among girls. Finally, this is an international report and cannot be used to compare to US or European rates because of cultural differences, largely regarding girls, such as you see in parts of Africa and South America. 

It is possible that boys are actually safer in boy scouts, but there are no valid studies that actually compare the rates of abuse among boys in scouting to abuse rates among boys in the broader world and can support that. Until there are such studies, the only hard numbers we have to go by are what has been reported to the places I noted. 

No, they can't be used effectively in a direct comparison with statistical modelling with a provable level of reliability.  However, that doesn't mean they don't provide useful data points for very rough comparisons. 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Again, "schools" vs one single organization is apples to turnips. Also, I'm sure you're aware of the variance and scale of difference in safety between public schools in Memphis and, say, those in Pleasanton, CA. Compare MI State with Elon University in NC. Which level of "school" do you mean? How many have on duty law enforcement and/or metal detectors? Our oldest son went to middle and high school in a pretty affluent counties and school districts and had them. That's a bit of a deterrent. These are simply not relevant or apt standards of comparison. As you also know, I'm sure, school counselors and teachers have a much higher rate of reporting than almost any other population group. Your statement may be "comforting" to recite, but not viably or objectively. 

Regardless of the fact that there is a BSA National, each of the BSA troops/packs/crews truly is a discrete organization.  The way they operate, the level of supervision and the rules they actually observe all vary drastically between groups, regardless of the fact that they are supposed to be operating in mostly the same way.

15 hours ago, yknot said:

Without reputable sources, this opinion can pretty much be interpreted as demonizing as well because it belittles the position that victims have that the BSA was at fault. I think the only hard figures I have seen regarding child abuse are the claims made in the BSA bankruptcy, the Catholic Church lawsuits, and the U.S. Gymnastics cases.  Most everything else has been someone's personal extrapolation or questionable one off sources. 

I've argued this point before.  There's plenty of actual evidence showing that the incidence of child sexual abuse is much higher among the general population than it is within Scouting (based upon known cases in Scouting).  Here is the quickest one I could find.

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311357/

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Rain gear: Don’t get a poncho, please. Ponchos are nearly useless. The best rain gear for Scouting is a two piece rain suit. Buy a set a size too large, as your Scout may need to put on extra layers underneath to stay warm. Frogg Toggs makes a good entry level set for about $25. Please choose a subdued color. Bright colors aren’t really suitable for our adventures in the woods.

-----------------------

Actually, I quite like (good) ponchos for hiking and backpacking.  For those two applications, I'd much rather have a good poncho than a rain jacket, but I'll admit a significant part of that is the fact that I've always been a sweaty guy and wearing a rain suit while being active doesn't actually keep me dry, it just means I'm soaked from sweat instead of rain.

One thing that can make a poncho MUCH more usable around camp is belting it around the waist to make it more of a tunic instead of a big bulky poncho.  I used to just use a nylon webbing strap off a duffle bag.

When this topic re-opens I'd like to remind people to read for meaning and not simply react to word choices that might be unfortunate or even accidental.  As an example (and not intended to criticize the author), there was a recent post where someone used the word "socialist" and there was an immediate hostile response.  However careful reading of the tone and context of the post made it clear that the writer was referring to "sociologist" and was not in fact attempting to bring economic theories or communist threats into the conversation.

Also, I'd like to reiterate that in addition to not referring to lawyers using any sort of scavenger terminology or implications, references relating to that whole discussion are also banned as being pointlessly inflammatory.  This is the final warning.  Anyone active on the thread before this point will be assumed to be aware of the restriction and will simply get a time-out.

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Just in case people are not getting the message here; this is as I said an atom bomb for councils.

 

I promise that EVERYONE reading this thread understands your view on the issues.  The horse is not just dead, it's now nothing more than a stain on the ground with some skin and bones shards mixed in.

Though leaving only the small camp wouldn't really be a reasonable compromise.  If you've got 14k scouts using 3 camps, while there may well be excess capacity that would allow for some consolidation, you can't take all the scouts from 3 different camps (even half-utilized camps) and cram them into the smallest one. 

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

All of which goes to show BSA (and LCs and COs) was negligent (if not reckless) in how they handled these maters.

There's a reason BSA and LCs do not want these to become lawsuits.

These are two different issues.  The argument for liability for a Sexual Assault has to be that the BSA could have prevented the assault had they taken reasonable preventative steps.

Whether or not you think they handled the cases appropriately after being notified has nothing to do with whether or not there were reasonable steps that the BSA should/could have taken that would have prevented the abuse.

Ok, well, I see that we are still having trouble limiting ourselves from the discussion of lawyers. 

I've gone through and hidden a number of posts when the entire body of the text wasn't acceptable and edited a few more posts when portions of the text were acceptable when other sections weren't.  I've also deleted posts and quotes that refer to a post I've hidden.  I tried to be even-handed, but if you think I was unfair, please let me know and I'll present the issue for consideration by the other Moderators.

In an attempt to avoid having to keep hiding posts, I'll be more specific on what is and is not permitted within this thread.

PERMITTED:

• Factual statements regarding lawyers involved in the bankruptcy;
• Factual statements regarding attorney fees for the bankruptcy;
• Discussion of involved attorney actions, statements and filings;

NOT PERMITTED:

• Discussion or comments regarding the fee structure attorneys use;
• Discussion or comments regarding the legal profession in general;
• Any comparison of attorneys to any other profession, animal or object;
• Discussion or commentary regarding the integrity or nature of attorneys beyond specific actions taken by attorneys involved in this case;
• Any mention of any variety of scavenging animal;

Acting as a Moderator again:

Since this is the 3rd or 4th or 5th time we've started in on it, let's put an end to the generalized discussions regarding the pros and cons of lawyers.  If future comments aren't very directly related to the bankruptcy case AND discussing something reasonably new, I'm going to just start deleting them. 

And yes, I know I've made comments myself.  I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just saying we need to be done.

35 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Does Grand Rapids issue you an annual charter or some other such right to continue operations? Do they have any intellectual or other property you utilize that they can retract or withhold? Do they have the unilateral right to withhold that annual renewal or a right to revoke? I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm taking potshots. I also don't know the inner workings and details of the BSA annual charter and all that rot. Trying to understand your comparison of the two contexts. Thanks.

Yes and no.  Each year we get an authorizing ordinance passed stating that the city is partnering with us to present an annual festival.  That authorization also gets us 50% pricing on all city services.  But getting the ordinance isn't directly contingent upon that clause in the bylaws and in fact it used to give all property to the Grand Rapids Arts Council instead.  And while we could technically still function without the city ordinance, effectively we could not because doubling the cost of police, streets and other services would make it impossible to afford.  So admittedly it isn't a perfect example

35 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

This isn't DISSOLUTION of the LC. This is failure to recharter. The LC, as a separately incorporated entity, can live long after BSA is dust. But the minute the BSA charter gets revoked, they forfeit all property to BSA National.

This is in both the Bylaws of BSA National as well as the LCs.

As for this

The moment they did so, BSA National and/or the sexual abuse claimants will be in court demanding either a) any such change be voided or b) declaring a BSA charter breach, in which case BSA claims the property "upon termination of a local council."

The LCs are going to have to pay. There is no getting around it. I really, really which BSA had been more honest about that from the start.

People can go to court over anything, so the fact that claimants will sue isn't particularly informative. 

The only way for this concept to hold any water would be for the LC assets to already technically belong to National or for the LCs to be found to be functionally extensions of the BSA national (in which case this argument is moot).  Because while bankruptcy courts have wide latitude in reversing property and monetary transactions retroactively, their overall authority isn't unlimited with regard to business decisions in general.  

Finding that National has an active claim on LC assets would be a very tough road to hoe.  What matters for evaluating property ownership is whether or not you have effective control over any of the bundle of rights that accompanies real property.  Namely the rights of possession, control, exclusion, enjoyment, and disposition.  As things stand, BSA doesn't control or hold any of those rights.  If BSA had influence over even just the disposition of assets in the normal course of business, you may have an argument, but from what I can tell, LCs can do with their property what they wish.  The fact that there is a potential triggering event that might change those ownership rights has nothing to do with ownership today.  Just like the fact that a mortgage lender has the right to foreclose if you don't pay doesn't mean they possess any ownership rights as long as you do pay.

So if BSA national doesn't own or control any current interest in the properties titled to LCs, then changing their own bylaws wouldn't be a financial transaction that might be subject to a bankruptcy unwinding.

Or if they didn't want to change that bylaw, they could simply grant every current LC and CO a one time 5 year charter extension that is only revocable "for cause". 

23 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, this was the line pushed in February 2020. And in some councils as late as summer 2020.

Since then, I will note that LCs are not singing that tune anymore because they know:

BSA lied to them.

 

Generally, it's accepted that if someone makes a statement they believe to be true, it's not a lie, even if they are later proved to be incorrect.  So has some documentation been discovered that the BSA knew LCs would be stuck on the hook but wanted to lie to them for some reason, or are you just assuming they must have known?

22 hours ago, tnmule20 said:

Here is a newsflash for you.

God is in control of everything.  If you don't think so I'm sure He will be happy to discuss this with you when you meet Him.

Not a conversation I would like to have.

I'd be happy to have that conversation.  I'm interested to find out why God feels children need to be raped and murdered.

11 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

I don't think I understand what this is about.  What would be the value added by TCC or BRG?  What would they be telling councils that councils don't already know?

Assuming a median level of competence, each council knows what its assets are worth.  I suppose maybe a different metric on the real estate value of a camp might produce a significantly different valuation, but that seems like it would be an outlier.  My council has a few decent size endowment funds, their value can be known to the penny at any given time.  We also own two camps; any competent real estate appraiser is going to give you a valuation on them that's going to be no more than 5-10% different any from any other appraiser. 

So what was the purpose of this?

I've been a Tax Assessor for about 20 years now and I can tell you with absolute certainty that this isn't the case.  When you are talking about homes or smaller properties where there are a couple dozen fairly similar properties sold within a mile or two each year, yes, you can get that level of accuracy.  But with special use properties with limited sales comparables?  No way do you get that accurate.  I regularly deal with tax appeals where my licensed appraiser's result is different from the petitioner's licenced appraiser by 20, 30 or even 40%.  

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

On the contrary, it demonstrates it pretty clearly.

Remember, there are two claims here. The first is that BSA controls the LCs OPERATIONS. The second is that BSA controls LCs PROPERTY.

The property argument is incredibly strong and is why this meeting happened. In short:

1) BSA charters each LC annually and can revoke those charters at any time. In other words, LCs exist at the will and the whim of BSA National.

2) Immediately upon terminating a LC charter, ALL LC assets get turned over to National. This is in both the Bylaws of BSA National as well as the LCs.

3) Therefore, while for day to day operations the LCs exist/are independent, ULTIMATELY their assets belong to National.

 

That whole argument is just nonsense.  It may sound logical, but actually holds zero water when it comes to property rights.  Non-profits are required to include in their bylaws a statement of who gets their assets in the case of dissolution, but this isn't binding and it can be changed at will.  I'm a part of a 501c3 that has a clause saying the City of Grand Rapids gets all of our assets if the organization folds up or moves out of state; that doesn't in any way mean Grand Rapids controls the organization or actually has an ownership claim on our assets.  And while the BSA may have required LCs to include a bylaw to that effect in order to be chartered, since the BSA can't stop the LC from changing that component of their bylaws, the BSA similarly has no current ownership claim on LC property.

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I can't speak for CS, but I have said the same and can speak to that. I, for one, have neither said nor implied it would be the sum total, only the BSA contribution. Even at that, $6100 is insulting, especially given the weak "we'll commit to asking the LCs for a contribution of $X and you men can go fight for the insurance money." In that context and knowing they may well be protecting/hiding large assets without sufficient legal grounds, it is offensive. My personal take and feeling. 

 

In this case, claims will be vetted, but weighed by a preponderance of the evidence. It does shift the burden, but no more so than the law requires, which is appropriate. I don't think that amounts to a presumption of guilt, by any means.

If you're referring to trial and conviction in the press and court of public opinion, that's another matter. Frankly, I despise how fast and loose our system is with allowing information to "leak" to the media and general public. It creates a tremendous and almost insurmountable mountain for the accused. That is anathema and contrary to our intended system of justice.

That first comment was entirely directed at CynicalScouter.  Though I'll agree that their washing their hands of the insurance companies (saying "you can pursue them") was just wrong.  But I don't personally think BSA owes anyone their own funds out of any kind of moral responsibility; if they owe money it's a financial responsibility only.  In other words, if they had sufficient insurance funds to entirely pay for their liabilities, I wouldn't view that as them "Getting off scott free" just because they didn't have to pay anything out of pocket.

As far as the second point, I was speaking generally about the problems with extended Statutes of Limitations.  I don't have any particular problem with the way claims are likely to be handled in the instant case.

On 5/3/2021 at 4:48 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Sufficient payment in an amount more than an insult (e.g. $6,000).

Yet again you are implying that the $6000 average per person is the sum total of what a victim would receive when you must know this isn't true.  The vast majority of the funds for claims against the BSA were/are always going to be coming from the insurance companies.  That is of course the whole reason organizations buy insurance.  Disagree with the proposed amount all you wish, but let's not be disingenuous about the whole thing. 

On 5/4/2021 at 10:33 AM, CynicalScouter said:

Conversely, the plaintiff/claimant have little manner in which to prove their case. Memories of all who might be still alive will all be suspect.

It cuts both ways.

Yes, but since since the accused in today's world is effectively presumed guilty, the impact is much more significant on the accused than on the accuser.
 

14 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

The point in which no abuse occurs due to BSA's negligence. That. That's the adequate level.

Yes, that's a nice idea.  The problem is that many people's belief seems to be that any abuse that occurs must be due to negligence.  Disregarding accusations would be negligent, allowing someone to be a scouter with an existing record (or even accusations) of abuse would be negligence, but failing to weed out a predator who has taken deliberate steps to disguise himself and appear harmless?  Regardless of what a sympathetic jury thinks, that simply isn't negligence.

On 4/29/2021 at 12:34 PM, 5thGenTexan said:

Do attorneys get paid by the word?  😀   I just give up trying to read it.

Pretty much, they get paid by the minute and are usually evaluated by the billable hours they pull in, so you can see how "concise writers" isn't really what law firm HR departments are shopping for.   Not to mention if they made things understandable to a lay-person, they'd be arguing for their own obsolescence.

I'm going to put on my "Moderator" hat here for a second:

Directly responding to another member is acceptable and a desirable part of this medium.  I even understand that at times, emotions will peak and there might be a response that includes some sarcasm, snark, criticism or even anger; however, responses MUST move the conversation forward. 

If you find yourself writing a response that includes some of those "negative" feelings, I ask you to do two things.  First, wait a few minutes after typing before you post, then re-read your writing and make sure it really reflects what you want to say. Second, make sure that you explain yourself and the reasons for your response and if applicable, provide an opposing view to the comment you object to.  If you can't be bothered to explain why you think someone said something foolish, then you have no business posting a comment solely as some sort of a text based eye-roll.  Just stick with a reaction instead.

ALSO,

Let's avoid discussions about other members as it is very easy for things to become "un-Scoutlike" quickly.  If you have something to say about their viewpoint or general outlook that is relevant to the topic, fine, but we don't want such things to devolve into a back-and-forth regarding a member rather than the topic.

And with that, I'm taking the hat back off again. 

38 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps. Not so sure about that. “Most” and “would” are squishy, but perhaps “many” and “might” are more apt. Regardless, all who have good counsel and/or good sense, which is most (to use your word) will not do anything like that before seeing the real cards on the table. Fortunately for survivor claimants, the TCC, FCR and Coalition may have been galvanized by the ill-advised and very badly timed deal with Hartford, creating an impenetrable wall sealing off the path for the BSA’s Plan. Stay tuned. Same Bat time. Same Bat channel. (Old guys, I gotchu.)

Yeah, that belief is certainly in the realm of "squishy".  And I still don't know what to make out of the Hartford deal.  As someone else mentioned, it's hard to know if it's reasonable without knowing what the overall policy limit is for Hartford, which is hard to know without knowing what the actual liabilities are that would have been covered by the Hartford policies.  And I agree, most wouldn't take an 85k deal without a reasonable level of confidence regarding what's left over.  But I don't think the confidence they would need is in the idea that "we got every last dollar we could" but rather "we got the majority of what we could, and no one escaped unscathed".  Unfortunately there too, developing that confidence is going to require court decisions and I suspect not bankruptcy court decisions because it will involve specific rulings on what is and isn't restricted.

I mean, I realize there are people who think the restrictions on Summit and Philmont are "shams", but that's kind of how our system works when it comes to that stuff, so I don't know if that description really applies.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I agree that the end goal of the TCC and many claimants is not the destruction of the BSA; however, most will want the money their lawyers are telling them they could expect if they reject the current offer.

The TCC (and the various lawyers) has a number in mind on what the BSA can afford to pay (as they have said on this site, they have already had a company perform an assessment of more than 500 BSA properties including a review if they are restricted or not).  They likely have a number in mind in terms of liability of insurance companies.  I doubt it is the full $102B; however, it is likely well north of $1-$2B.  Until BSA's offer comes close to number they have in mind, they will continue to reject any offer.   The judge is unlikely to approve a deal until the claimants approve an offer.  In the latest response, the prediction is that 95% of claimants will vote against BSA's current offer.  BSA needs 66% to approve.

Now, does this then end with Chapter 7 of BSA ... I think that is too early to tell.  

This is one reason I really wish they could just adjudicate now regarding whether or not the LCs are independent.  As long as there are people arguing that their assets should be included "in the bankruptcy", this isn't going to be resolved.  If there was a decision that they ARE independent, then at least we could move forward with the understanding that their contributions are voluntary and can't be compelled.  (obviously if they were ruled to be extensions of national instead, then the whole argument over the assets becomes moot)

I realize people still have the option to go forward on the state level, and that's fine. But at least we won't have people holding out on the national bankruptcy because they are still dreaming that the LC assets can be liquidated by court order.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Ok, so back to the subject at hand: math.

$2.4 billion / 82,500 = $29,090

$7.1 billion / 82,500 = $86,060

There's no way I know of about how they came up with that when so many of these abuse cases have had $1+ million payouts. But that's ok, we'll take their numbers for now.

Show of hands: how many people here really, really thing that the abuse victims, or 67% of the abuse victims, are going to take on average $86,060 and say "thanks" and let BSA National exit bankruptcy

As with almost anything in the world, the cost of 100 things in a package is never the same as 1 thing times 100.  So if you independently litigate a case, you might get a multi-million dollar settlement, but when you are part of a class-action, you take a hit, particularly if your situation is on the "worse" end of the scale.  The advantage of course is that you aren't stuck litigating on your own.

And frankly I do think most of the victims would take an $86k payout and go on their way. (though I doubt you'd hear "thanks")  That's enough money to have a significant impact on someone's life in most parts of the country.  I don't think it would make them happy, but if it meant they could actually collect in a reasonable period of time?  Yeah, I think most of them would take it unless they thought there was something fishy going on with the insurance company contributions.

I truly don't think most of the claimants have Kosnoff's dedication to burning down the BSA.  So when you start looking at the relatively small increase in the payout pool from a complete liquidation of BSA National vs a Reorganization, I don't think it's going to have the kind of attractiveness that some folks believe it will.

Just now, yknot said:

Those points are meaningless in this context. At best, they can pointed to as excuses for YP failure. The claimants are looking for competency in YP as one of their demands for the BSA to go forward. 

How is that meaningless?  Those are exactly the problems that needs to be resolved.  The current YP rules leave basically ZERO space for abuse to happen if they are followed. (I suppose maybe a pair of abusers could work together, but that seems unlikely)

And the claimants don't have anything that resembles a coherent desire when it comes to YP other than to say "we want to make sure this never happens again", which of course isn't possible.  Even when the subject of "What changes do you think should be made" comes up, the suggestions always revolve around reporting, not actual changes in YP guidelines.

45 minutes ago, yknot said:

Part of the issue with YP is also that BSA has not been honest. In a letter to Congress it said it supported look back legislation but at the same time spent millions quietly lobbying to fight such legislation. In the same letter to Congress, it also claimed it had never allowed a known perpetrator to return to scouting but that claim later had to be recanted when it was found to be untrue. BSA has known it has had issues with predators almost since its inception and yet for many years it pretended such problems didn't exist and only acknowledged the ineligible volunteer files as a result of a lawsuit. Over the years BSA has claimed a lot of things about YP but that doesn't always reflect the reality. 

Those aren't issues with the Youth Protection policies, those are simply your issues with the BSA.

There are two main issues with Youth Protection:

1. Most adults are inclined to trust the other adults around them and can't really imagine abuse happening around them.
2.  It is exceedingly difficult to get strict compliance from volunteers, particularly when the behaviors you are trying to control are happening in a dispersed setting.

17 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I’m not sure where you heard that. Certainly not from me. Some fractional measure of compensation is pretty much all I have left to hope for out of the disaster this created for my family and me.

Most statements you see from victims of almost anything talk about how "it's not about the money".  You might be different because you are/were a lawyer and you understand money is really the only option left for you.

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, sexual abuse is a lawyers' "get rich quick scheme"?

Any large class action lawsuit is a lawyer's "get rich not-quite-quick scheme".

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

That would absolutely look like hiding assets in order to avoid turning them over the creditors.

So?  As long as it's not legally considered a no-no by the bankruptcy laws, the optics don't matter much since all the options are bad anyway.  

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

I see. So, lawyers who take on sexual abuse cases are evil vultures?

And how, exactly, do you think these abuse victims are suppose to file a lawsuit? Go pro se?

And LCs are not "state sanctioned". They are registered and incorporated as not for profits by each state, but so what? That does not mean the State of Vermont's governor can order LCs not to turn over their assets to national should national refuse to recharter the LC.

No, "lawyers who behave like Kosnoff" are vultures, though I would probably not say "evil".  If you portray yourself as a crusader for justice and the common good, while taking 40% of the payout finally achieved, you are something else I can't quite define other than to say it's icky and I wouldn't shake hands with it.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

No. BSA's very, very clear. The LC must abide by National's requirement that the LC write into their Articles of Incorporation that If an LC fails to recharter, ALL assets of the LC revert to National.

Any LC that refuses to include that clause in their Articles of Incorporation will simply not be chartered by BSA.

This is clear as day in the Boy Scouts of America Charter and Bylaws

 

This is a non-issue.  If the LCs are separate organizations all they need to do is amend their bylaws/incorporation documents to remove those clauses and the problem is solved.  Obviously that would mean that they wouldn't get rechartered, but if National is in Chapter 7, that's not really an issue is it?

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Answers like this are academically sound, but morally disingenuous and ultimately avoid the issue. One to one, less Scouting is equally as impactful and repugnant as being repeatedly raped by your Scoutmaster resulting in millions of dollars in life wreckage, suicidality, self harm, CPTSD, depression, failed marriages and etc. Got it.

I'm not sure how you got that out of qwazse's post.  No one is arguing that the impact on an individual of being raped can be balanced by whatever positive benefit they might have gotten out of the program.  Obviously on an personal level, being abused can pretty much outweigh everything else that happens in a kid's life. 

But the situation isn't as simple as the idea:  "If Scouting hadn't happened, kids wouldn't have been raped, so Scouting was/is a failure".  I mean, Scouts didn't create pedophiles, it just gave them a target, but in the absence of scouts, one would assume they simply would have looked for alternative ways to access kids.  Child rape happens everywhere kids exist and we don't even know if the incidence of abuse is higher in Scouts than it is anywhere else.

The harsh truth of life is that there will ALWAYS be a calculus that includes a certain amount of "acceptable losses" for any activity and the incidence of tragedy that people will insist on before they will participate is NOT zero.

11 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

These cases aren't about finding someone to punish, they're about trying to compensate people who have been injured.  And this cannot be said enough, no scout is today is having anything taken away that they own or are entitled to.  Neither they, nor likely we, bought or built much if any of the camps and endowments that may be given over to people who were children when the worst offense we can think of short of murder was committed against them.

If we think scouts today should have strong camps after these victims are partially, slightly, compensated than we need to go out and rebuild those camps and endowments for those scouts.

Except that this really isn't true.  These cases are entirely about finding someone to punish, because in most cases the actual offender isn't punishable and basically all of the victims tell you "it isn't about the money".  The general feeling in this country is that for almost anything bad that happens, there has to have been some over-arching villain or problem that caused it or allowed it to happen.  I assume this is because people know you can't ever stop bad people (or unfortunate accidents) from existing, so instead they want to try and find some other entity to take action against to make them feel like they have some control and can feel safer.

The unfortunate thing is that our legal processes have transformed civil liability in this country from an objective concept that can be independently measured into not much more than formalized extortion.  Made worse by the fact that the insurance companies making a profit on the whole thing insist on settlements rather than making people actually prove their case.

10 minutes ago, yknot said:

BSA must have some data available because their insurers would certainly track it. A few years ago, there was some reporting in one of the annual reports although that has since stopped or at least I have been unable to find it since.

It also wouldn't be that difficult to include some basic unit level reporting on the JTE forms. That could be collated and shared. BSA already does this for merit badges, volunteer hours, and the like. 
 

If all you were looking for was number of accusations, number of claims filed and stuff like that, it would be much simpler and yes, I'm sure they could tell you that.  It's getting enough data into a computer to actually do analysis that gets expensive.

On 4/13/2021 at 9:31 AM, qwazse said:

The only surprise by the weather in Western PA is when it is unnervingly calm for more than 18 hours straight. Those bright sunny days with little breeze give me the willies.

Yeah, you spend the entire time waiting for the proverbial "other shoe" to drop.