elitts

Most of the victims you've met were abused by people who were open about their preference for young children and would have been identified if anyone had asked around about them? Or were abused by people who had prior public records of CSA? Or were abused by people who just joined up as an adult leader and immediately began pulling kids off to the side to molest them? What you've called a "hypothetical" wasn't a hypothetical. It was a description of the basic MO of pedophiles according to all the documentation on the subject I've ever seen, including YPT. I mean if there genuinely are

Moderator Note: I'm being admittedly over-bearing on the issue because of how fast it tends to spiral out of control, but I have deleted a few more comments and posts referencing the legal profession in general. It was a newer member, so I'm not issuing any reprimands, but I wanted to remind people that the rule is still in effect, even if I'm not as quick to see the posts over the weekend. For those of you who have been around for a while, I'd like to encourage you to simply flag posts that stray into dangerous waters rather than replying to them. Reporting them doesn't automatica

I believe there are some detectors that can detect the power source rather than the transmissions, but the good ones aren't cheap. Cynical and I have had this conversation before, so I'm responding because there are new folks reading who raised the issue, not to try and beat Cynical over the head with my response yet again. My primary issue with this key factor in determining liability is that most of the time with these cases (and other similarly heart-rending issues) the viewpoint seems to be that the very fact of a scout having been abused is considered prima facie (I think I u

Maybe not ON the climbing wall, what about pulled off around behind it? Or stopped for a break on a canoe trip when the other boats float up ahead for a few minutes or in the ammo room of the shooting range? The only way I can think of the actually make sure every child is safe from sexual abuse would be to make virtually certain that every child is being continuously monitored by at least two different people who don't know each other.

I suspect part of the reason Scouts isn't being condemned from the rooftops is because for almost everyone in the country "The BSA" is their friends and neighbors in the troop/pack down the road, NOT the folks over in Irving, TX. It's harder to vilify an organization when it's made up of people you know. I suspect your notion that the BSA is sitting on mountains of "data" is incorrect. They may well have decades of "information", but the amount of money and time it takes to digitize historical paper records into usable "data" is frequently mindboggling. For a comparison, I work in t

Where isn't a child at risk of being sexually abused? It's an unfortunate fact of life that you risk being hurt by being alive and you risk being hurt by other people as soon as you interact with them. The only way parents get through the job of raising their kids with their sanity intact is by convincing themselves that "it won't happen to my child"; unfortunately, sometimes they are wrong.

We give our Eagle Scouts a genuine felt Stetson at their Court of Honor. It's still the single most popular thing that new Cub Scouts talk about when they do the Webelos visit to a Troop Meeting. Hell, I even kinda wanted one myself when I first saw it, except that I can't tolerate hats in anything above about 65 degrees, so I'd never wear it and I'm too cheap to pay $100 for a hat I won't hardly wear.

It's called the "Activity Consent Form", I can't personally say how long it's been around, but at least since 2014 as that's when an article about it was written on the Scoutingmagazine blog. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/19-673.pdf

This is nonsense with absolutely zero basis in either the YP rules or common sense.

The issue with generalized discussion of attorneys in this thread revolves entirely around avoiding flaring tempers and hijacking of the thread, not protecting the reputation/honor of the field. Discussion of specific attorneys and their actions is permitted because some of the attorneys in this case are operating well beyond the standard role being a court representative/advocate for a client and so their actions may have a bearing on how things shake out. Whether or not someone says something that could be considered libelous isn't really a concern. That said, I have deleted your more

I meant what criminal conspiracy that the evidence we have thus far actually supports. The only one of those that you could even come close to with any of the statements or evidence I've heard of would be "Child Endangerment" but even that would be one hell of a stretch. Personally, I REALLY wish they had been able to file charges in at least a couple of places. With as widespread as the "whack a mole" priest shuffling was, I simply can't believe that there wasn't some kind of instructions in place making that a quasi-official church policy. Even if they couldn't make the charges s

As someone else mentioned, competency in bankruptcy litigation is what advisors are for, but there's no getting around the fact that someone (or some group) has to represent the masses based upon that advice. And while a cut-throat attorney may offer excellent advice on navigating a situation like this, the whole purpose of having a committee to represent the victims is that you actually need people with the viewpoint of a survivor. That simply isn't a mindset that a non-survivor attorney could effectively channel. And since I'm assuming that these guys had a choice in the matter and we

Just to make it official, ThenNow correctly related the current policy on the discussion of lawyers within this (and related) threads. Generalized discussion about lawyers and their motivations is not acceptable; but specific discussion about any attorney involved in the case and actions they've taken or statements they've made are fair game.

I totally get why they'd be pissed off, but by the same token, I just can't fathom ANY way they could possibly have been included once the number of claims started skyrocketing. I mean, it took months to get a single additional group (the LCs) looked at and participating and that's a relatively homogenous group of organizations. Trying to add in every CO that wants in on top of that just seems like it would have been entirely unworkable.

This is one of those areas where it's hard (for me at least) to know how to approach the issue. Whenever I see someone making impassioned but incorrect statements I always have to argue with myself about correcting them. I'm always trying to decide "does this person actually want correct information or do they just want a chance to express their feelings?". On top of that, my second thought is usually, "regardless of whether or not the commenter wants/needs to be corrected, would leaving it alone result in other people getting incorrect information, and would that matter?" So sometimes

No, a copyright violation doesn't require selling or a monetary exchange. Someone duplicating a copyrighted work and distributing it for free would be a violation as well. However, the nature of the use and the impact of the use on the market or the value of the copyrighted work DOES factor into the evaluation of the "Fair Use" defense to copyright infringement accusations. But in the context of my comment, all I was really trying to convey is that if someone is considering making patrol patches or a troop patch that isn't going to be distributed, they don't really need to be concerned

We had a patrol that wanted to use that patch for their intended "Sniper Patrol". The argument being that the blank patch was appropriate since "you never see a good sniper". But in the end the name got nixed by the SM on the grounds of "let's not name a patrol after a job dedicated to killing people".

If I'm dragging some conversations from business school up accurately, one reason why companies tend to be over-zealous about protecting their trademarks/copyrights even in fairly minor cases is that their ability to use the courts to redress violations depends on their having actively protected their interests in the past. In other words, if they were to simply ignore small-time patch producers now, they could very well have problems getting a judge to protect their interests against a similar sized producer in the future. I don't remember if that issue is one written into the law or si

I just want to clarify for those reading, it's the production of patches by a commercial business that is the trademark/copyright violation, NOT the wearing of the patch by a scout. If some parent makes a dozen patrol patches for the use of their own troop and isn't selling them, that will generally not run afoul copyright protections.

This depends in large part upon the Den Leaders and Cubmaster. I know that when my son was a cub 6-7 years ago, he wasn't bored generally. Some of the Den meetings were a little boring when it was the "talk about it" style, but as long as many of the meetings involve going to do something they stay pretty engaged. The biggest issue is when Cubmasters start doing "parent" announcements and discussions at Pack Meetings while the scouts are expected to sit and listen. When I was CM I'd do a minute or two of "What to expect soon" with the Cubs sitting and listening, then I'd send them out to p

Regardless of #2, I absolutely guarantee that #1 was a factor. There's no way the constant stream of record keeping problems I've seen discussed on here are new issues. Actually it really isn't, it's about keeping the courts from being burdened with cases that are practically impossible to actually litigate with confidence in the result because so much time has passed. SoL were invented well before the personhood of corporations and before the advent of the large class-action lawsuit with crazy awards. If a bad plan is likely to get you more money than no plan, the bad

The problem I see with that list isn't so much the number of employees, it's the amount of "senior leadership". There are 22 people with titles that would indicate "senior leadership" out of a staff of 56, and that excludes the District Executives. To my eyes, that's WAY to many leadership positions for a staff that size. Of course without salaries and job descriptsions it's hard to know if they are truly "executive level" staff or if the councils simply suffer from title inflation the way banks do. But to provide some contrast, I work in a similar sized organization. It's a local gov

My apologies for delayed action in some cases, I've been preparing for and then attending summer camp for the last 12 days or so and the scavenger conversation got unfortunate traction. All comments referring to lawyers as scavengers has been deleted along with those portions of responses that quoted the comments. No penalties are being issued at this time, but please take this as a reminder that the previously established rules for this thread still apply. No generalized bashing of lawyers (though comments on specific attorney actions are acceptable); No referring to victims as

I think it depends on what the adults think the "fun and wholesome" should look like. If the adults always think in terms of clean, easy and well-organized activities I think even if you keep the kids engaged while the activites are actually happening, you won't really excite them into wanting to come back. I'm picturing lots of handi-crafts, well organized standard games, uneventful camping/hiking. I think "adventurous" and "new and interesting" is far more important than trying to plan a "classicly fun" program. My secret to being a Cubmaster was to either stick with activities that

The ongoing discussion in this thread wasn't ever directly about the LDS, Muttsy posted something fairly negative about the LDS in the Bankruptcy thread and there was a response or two from that, but it would likely have died at that point except that we started talking about organizational requirements associated with mandatory reporting and required reporting in general so the whole group of posts got broken out and a new thread was created. He didn't actually create a thread for the purpose of targeting the LDS. Frankly, yes, my preference for rules and laws is to institute the lea