Jump to content

CynicalScouter

Members
  • Content Count

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

CynicalScouter last won the day on October 25

CynicalScouter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

About CynicalScouter

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

378 profile views
  1. Except that change was, for many, two iterations and 20 years of Woodbadge ago. In my district, all the WB people were 2010 (maybe 2007) and forward. Only 1 person was I think pre-2000. When people around here talk about "old" Woodbadge, they mean prior to the 2019/2020 re-write. Not what happened in 2000.
  2. Yes, but I believe you had mentioned in a prior filing the proposed plan requires 90% of claimants to agree. That's the problem. You only need 10% + 1 to dig in their heels.
  3. Which works out to be $63,000 per victim, before attorneys (so, cut that down to $40,000). As for the lawyer friend who said sue everyone, that is right. If I am an attorney looking out for my client's interests, I am going to find out anyone who may have liability for the bad acts. That's not "ambulance chasing", that's good lawyering.
  4. The number doesn't worry me for now. $1.5 billion. $3 billion. $3 trillion. That number doesn't worry me. What number worries me? How much Hartford/Century and the rest of the insurers will be forced to pay out on the policies. If the court rules in BSA's favor and declares the general liability policies valid, then the fight turns to claimants vs. insurance companies. Let them tear each other apart. BSA hobbles away. If, however, Hartford/Century and the rest convince the judge that they are out, then keep this in mind: you can't get blood out of a stone. Past a certain point, there simply is no more money to be had. Liquidate the BSA's assets (leave it with literally nothing but that which is directly given by the Congressional charter, namely, the rights to the names, etc.) and that's only $1 billion. Then they'll go after individual councils for the rest. That will be a slog; certain councils with few claims against them will survive. Others will be right behind National in the liquidation line. But even there, past a certain point, there's not enough money. They they'll go after the COs. I've noticed a lot of appearances by churches as interested parties. They see where this is going. For all those insisting this will be done by Q1 or Q2 2021, I don't believe it. I said before I'll say again: Boy Scouts of America, the congressional chartered entity, survives. The Congressional Charter's provision that the organization/corporation is "eternal" saves it as a shell: no assets, no staff, no nothing but a board (again, congressionally required). And it rebuilds not from Square One, but Square Zero or even Square Minus One.
  5. I suspect they conducted a "District event" or "Council event" where the invitations were extended to only 1 Pack. OR The interpreted "District event" or "Council event" as "District/Council APPROVED event"
  6. Not public schools and municipalities, at least under the NY version. That law did NOT allow for waiver/extension of claims against local and state government.
  7. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Supreme Court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales A town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband
  8. BSA is a voluntary organization. When it has a child turned over to it, it takes on certain legal liabilities/responsibilities to that child ("duty to care"). When agrees to make use of volunteers, it takes on certain legal liabilities/responsibilities to to supervise, properly select, properly train, and properly remove that person. State and federal government has no such similar "duty to care". It has no duty/obligation to ensure anyone (other than a government employee or someone acting on behalf of the government like a contractor) doesn't abuse someone else. Simple.
  9. Correct. In the case of NY, the law did NOT allow for waiver/extension of claims against local and state government.
  10. Here's the number to watch: 3500. That's about 10% of total claimants (28000+7300). Based on prior filings, the plan is that any settlement would require 90% approval. That means if 3500 people reject it, and the plan fails.
  11. That is apparently a bridge too far for many people here. The fundraising rules are there to be ignored.
  12. The government has no legal responsibility to protect you. The lack of an investigation is not an actionable claim. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Supreme Court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why? Because the federal and state government have no affirmative duty to protect you, start police investigations (see Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales), or do anything. This is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to say about this. Since Joshua DeShaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm. In reaching this conclusion, the court opinion relied heavily on its precedents in Estelle v. Gamble and Youngberg v. Romeo. Put another way: 1) If the abused child were in a state-controlled facility such as a state/local jail, or a state/local OWNED AND OPERATED hospital, or a state/local juvenile home (DSS = Department of Social Services), then the state has taken on the affirmative duty to protect child from abuse. 2) Otherwise, the state has no duty and cannot be sued for failure to protect the child (DeShaney) or the woman with a restraining order (Gonzalez). EVEN IF THE STATE KNOWS THE CHILD (DeShaney) OR WOMAN (Gonzalez) IS BEING ABUSED OR IS IN JEOPARDY OF BEING ABUSED, OR HAS A RESTRAINING ORDER (Gonzalez) This plan simply will not pass legal muster.
  13. No. No, no, no, no. No. There's no way anyone is going to agree to that kind of taxpayer support for the victims of a private organization. Nope. And no, not "everyone knew". That was the point. As for why you can't sue school systems or the government. First, for state and local schools, you can sue in federal court. Second, there's the idea of sovereign immunity: the government cannot be sued without its consent. And the arguments are entirely different. BSA is a PRIVATE volunteer youth organization. The government is, well, the government. PUBLIC. I do not want to get into a major legal discussion here but there's a giant, massive legal difference between 1) BSA, a private not for profit which agreed to work with children and which is accused of failing to monitor and properly deal with cases of abuse it knew or should have know and 2) The federal government
  14. This came up in another thread, but I wanted to pull this out for this reason. I've seen units with 12 scouts and 120. I've seen units with 1 ASM/Den Leader and 12. The one thing I have consistently seen is a complete and total lack of succession planning for Scoutmaster/Cubmaster (I know there's difference, but bear with me). I know it isn't about the awards/knots, but I wanted to point out the following is part of the Unit Leader Award of Merit. Think about about that: It is an "Award of Merit" item to have a succession plan for the Scoutmaster/Cubmaster. The result has been time and time again that someone is forced/shoved into a position not because they want it but because they are, in effect, threatened: you are our last hope, if not you then no one (and in the case of the 12 scout troop the person was told "if not you, we fold.") And sadly, in 11 years (this was a post from 2009) nothing has changed. Cornered. Threatened. Do it or we are screwed. Not knowing what they are getting into. Etc. Of course you don't want a succession plan that looks TOO much like you are plotting to toss the existing unit leader, either. Has anyone figured out a better way to square this circle?
×
×
  • Create New...