CynicalScouter

5 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

I would think that if it is the former, that is very concerning, and may well lead to a 3 tiered program that many other countries use, splitting ScoutsBSA into 2 age distinct groups.

Many/most counties go 3 tier and make the third tier go past 21. If that's what it takes, that's what it takes.

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

When emotional reason doesn't fix minds, resort to denigrating. Shesh. 

Barry

No one is talking about reporting data about scouts saying the word "sex" in a tent. That's a straw man that is getting conjured up.

There is a GIANT difference between what I (and the TCC and BSA) are calling Tier 1 sexual abuse involving acts that I cannot even DESCRIBE here and scouts saying the word sex in a tent.

You want me to get graphic? I can stop saying "Tier 1" and we can start to get into specifics. The mods have asked me not to, but since you all seem to want to use that to make it seem like that all that is being talked about is "scouts saying the word "Sex" in a tent" maybe that rule needs to get reviewed.

32 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

The BSA bankruptcy seems to be in the final phases

No, no it isn't.

It isn't even close to being in the "final phases".

33 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Current expectations are that the BSA will exit bankruptcy in the 1st quarter of 2022.

Again, not even close to reality.

4 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Actually, yes. I dealt with an instance of a parent calling that CSA. I’m certain that I’m not the first person to face that situation.

And guess what? That would probably be determined by BSA to be unsubstantiated or otherwise dismissed.

Of course, we'll never know because BSA refuses to release the data.

But that's OK, the court is going to order them to do so in the future.

Or are you still of the opinion we need to get rid of civil litigation/deny sexual abuse victims of their day in court in order to convince BSA it should report this data?

On 10/12/2021 at 12:50 PM, qwazse said:

Another harsh reality: if we really want to promote transparent reporting, we have to remove the threat of litigation. More carrots, fewer sticks.

11 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

a proven program

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.

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Data. Proof. 

Which BSA has done literally everything in its power to keep away from inspection and review by anyone not within BSA and, according to Johnson, even within BSA.

That's consistent with what happened when BSA withheld the data on the prevalence of sexual abuse form Meringer when he did his report/study on the subject.

You cannot have it both ways where: a) BSA is allowed to hide the data and then claim b) that because there is no data that proves there is no problem.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

It is amazing to that yesterday 4 experts in the field of CSA spoke out about CSA in BSA and today members of this forum are trying their best to minimalize what was said.  What would it take to make some you believe this is still a big issue?

It is part and parcel of BSA: they have convinced themselves they are absolute perfect.

I can recall BSA in testimony/letter submitted to Congress when there were demands that ALL volunteers be subject to Criminal Background Checks (CBCs) that BSA was sure this wasn't needed, would cost too much, and the existing BSA YPT was fine.

Several dozen instances of abuse later, CBCs were put in place.

11 minutes ago, DeaconLance said:

I guess I am flabbergasted that after all this the BSA and every state isn’t requiring background checks and clearances.

BSA does, but the argument is that they are cursory and useless.

1) BSA does run a Criminal Background Check (CBC) when an application is submitted.

2) Chartered Organizations are SUPPOSED to be talking to, interviewing, and getting to know the people they are signing off on. The Adult Application even says

Quote

I [the Chartered Organization Head or Representative] have reviewed this application and the responses to any questions answered “Yes,” and have made any follow-up inquiries necessary to be satisfied that the applicant possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities to be an adult leader in the BSA.

How many actually do? Close to zero. My COR wouldn't know any of my ASMs to look at.

And the references checks from the adult applications? In my council those get farmed out to volunteers. So we have untrained volunteers running reference checks and are shocked, SHOCKED to find abusers still make it in?

31 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

But i have experience with situations that were filed under the category of abuse that wouldn't come under the sex abuse most folks are thinking in these discussions. I would really like to know the real numbers

Which is why the Catholic Church, for example, reports two numbers annually:

1. Total allegations (anyone can claim or file anything) and
2. Status: Unable to be proven, Substantiated,  Investigation ongoing, Other (e.g. referred to provincial, unknown), Unsubstantiated

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

So both numbers are "real" and "real" important to know.

14 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Not likely to find that. Document retention requirements were not as robust back then, and even the current strongest requirements would not require maintaining a document that long. 

But my understanding is that BSA started indemnifying CO's around '73 or '76 or so. 

I've been able to track down annual charter agreements from the 1920s and 1950s just via google. I'm sure a circa 1970 charter agreement is sitting on some shelf in BSA HQ or in some filing cabinet somewhere.

By the by, if you want to see just how much in the tank some of the folks in BSA are, checkout the r/BSA subreddit post about the Johnson press conference.

The mods over there are all former or current BSA staff and one in particular is just trashing Johnson. The other posters are doing the same implying Johnson lied, he's doing it for money (?), this is all a plot by Anderson/the lawyers, the BSA YP program is just perfection, etc.

You want to know why nothing changes? Because you have professionals (and many volunteers) convinced BSA is perfect as is and maybe should even revert BACK to the "good old days".

Next three key dates in the bankruptcy:

• TCC townhall on October 14.
• End of Exclusivity on October 18 (and what I would imagine would be the TCC filing its plan THAT DAY or the next)
• Next Omnibus hearing on October 19. No agenda so far, but I suspect there will be some activity regarding discovery requests and such

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

A retired Plano, Tex., police detective, Mr. Johnson was hired as the youth protection director in 2010 to put programs in place to respond to and prevent sexual exploitation. That same year, a Portland jury issued an $18.5 million award against the Boy Scouts in a landmark sex-abuse case that would shed light on the youth group’s knowledge of suspected incidents of sexual abuse.

For those bemoaning or wailing about poor, poor BSA getting picked on by those bad old lawyers, keep the following in mind.

BUT FOR the Oregon case, which included an order by the Oregon Supreme Court directing BSA to release some of the IV Files, BSA would STILL be in denial mode, STILL be operating the same way it always had, etc.

It was lawsuits like Oregon and the ones that came before in the 1980s that FORCED the BSA (I'm sure with poking/prodding/shoving from the insurance carriers) to create YP in the first place.

In sum, civil litigation and the threat of civil litigation is the ONLY thing that has prompted BSA to move on this subject in the last 3 decades.

8 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I just got back from a meeting where the bankruptcy, selling of camps, and membership was the topic of conversation. Not only was I not surprised by anything that was said because It has been said here, I ended up telling them a few things they did not know, specifically the presser today. It's sad when I get accurate and reliable information faster here than from my own council.

The fact is, BSA has a history spanning decades of not telling anyone anything.

And that means the LCs have even less information to then send to volunteers.

Add to this that the BSA and LCs are parties to the case and therefore restricted in terms of what they can and cannot say about the case. Etc.

I still think it mindboggling that BSA is the only not for profit I can think of that does NOT a) have a staff directory  b) have a listing of its board members or c) both on its website. So, you wouldn't even know who to ask if you had questions.

Kosnoff has a message for me.

It is all good: this is all material in the public domain and it isn't about attribution. I just really find it insightful of all the material we post here (and it is a lot) what gets his interest the most/is most notable.

I know we produce a LOT of material but the question is whether it is relevant. I'm glad to see it is.

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

I would think it would be for any murder since it could not be determined to be 1st or 2nd degree without charges. 

Depends on the state. Remember: some states have as much as "fourth degree murder", whereas another state would call that "involuntary manslaughter". The language matters from state to state.

29 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

The SCOTUS has held that retroactive SOL laws were unconstitutional for criminal laws. 

I expect to see challenges to the civil laws as well, but given the current makeup of the court, they might stand. 

FYI: Interesting article I read about retroactive extension of statutes of limitations in civil matters. While the U.S. Supreme Court has said since Calder v. Bull (1798) that such things do not violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on states passing ex post facto laws (holding, in part, that the provision applies only to CRIMINAL law) state constitutionshave been read in such a way that such an attempt to extend civil statutes of limitations would be a violation of the defendants under the state constitution's due process and ex post facto provisions. 24 states have a per se rule against such statutes and two others (New York and Wisconsin) only allow it for "exceptional" circumstances.

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3446&context=vlr

"Departing from the federal approach, twenty-four states have held that a retroactive extension to a statute of limitations that revives an otherwise time-barred claim is per se impermissible, meaning that it is absolutely invalid in any context.

• Seven of the per se states depart from the federal approach because of specific prohibitions against retroactive legislation in their own state constitutions. (Alabama, Colorado, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas)
• Eleven per se states (Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia) depart from the federal approach even further by holding that retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations are a direct infringement on a vested property right that is created under their state constitutions. In these states, once a claim has time-lapsed, the potential defendant enjoys a vested property right and no longer needs to defend against a particular claim. Under this type of constitutional interpretation, unlike the federal approach, any infringement on that right to be free from suit is considered a violation of substantive due process and invalid legislation.
• Six states hold retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations to be invalid per se without relying on their state constitutions to support this position.
  • Five states embrace the per se invalid approach but do not cite any source in their constitution or general statutes that create a protected vested right. In these five states—Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Oregon, and Pennsylvania—the complete prohibition against revival of time barred claims is a rule of construction as opposed to a statutory or constitutional restriction.
  • Vermont’s prohibition on retroactive legislation is rooted in a state statutory provision, rather than any limitation imposed by the Vermont constitution."

23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 I want to know more about that somewhat thrown away line. Was he referring to within the organization or without? Both?

I guarantee that’s coming up in a deposition: which BSA executives and officials blocked Johnson‘s inquiries. Names. Dates. Meetings.

Just now, vol_scouter said:

Michael Johnson was hired after serving as a detective investigating child abuse cases in Fort Worth.  I think he said a 20 year career so he is exactly who you wanted.

The point I think was trying to be made, which went over some heads, is that if Johnson wanted BSA to do something then Johnson, as a detective with 20 years of experience was exactly the kind of person to do it.

The fact that he didn't speaks to a failure on Johnson's, not BSAs.

51 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Associated Press version 

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/10/12/boy-scouts-safe-kids-former-youth-protection-director/

‘The Boy Scouts Is Not Safe For Kids’ Former Youth Protection Director Says, Adding: ‘We Failed You’

I posted this 51 minutes ago.

Kosnoff then tweeted this exact story 3 minutes later.

Hi Mr. Kosnoff!

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO, if only we had hired someone with a police background, who could not be intimidated, who knew how to investigate suspected criminal activity, collect evidence, and draw upon his contacts in local, state, and federal law enforcement organizations to make scouting safe.

According to Johnson he was not allowed access to a lot of this.

35 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

One of the concerns I have is the specific names in the IVF be distributed, which was called for in the press conference.

Somehow the Catholic Church and USA gynamstics figured out ways to do it.

BSA can continue to refuse and it will get ordered by the court to do so.

Here is the Permanently Ineligible and Ineligible Members and Participants

https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/permanently_ineligible_members.html

and the Catholic dioceses do it diocese by diocese not one big national list.

So it can be done. 

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

the BSA has been liquidated, could not the councils say that they followed national policies that they had no role in making so they should not be liable for a national policy failure?

No because independent whatever national established the councils have an obligation to ensure the safety of those scouts and how those units were operating. they didn’t. That said you get your question on parsing out liability it helps the LC. It reduces the liability but I don’t think 100% absolves.

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If the BSA has been liquidated, the local councils will not have access to the insurance companies because they did not have the contract (some councils have had additional policies that they would be able to access but the large dollars are the national ones)?

 Let’s be clear here: even a BSA liquidation means the polices still name all councils as insureds or co-insureds. More likely to happen: the insurance companies refuse to honor them claiming BSA in conjunction with the LCs covered up and hid, pretty much Hartford’s argument until it made the deal.

not saying it will work but that is where that train is headed.

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

opening wide the door to TCC 1.0.

Right and that is where I think we are heading: a chapter 11 that looks like the TCC (whatever that looks like).

Chapter 7? Here is the thing: even a TCC plan requires 2/3rds. Is it possible there are enough victims who are now in the “No, let it burn, vote no on any plan”? Group?

Associated Press version 

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/10/12/boy-scouts-safe-kids-former-youth-protection-director/

‘The Boy Scouts Is Not Safe For Kids’ Former Youth Protection Director Says, Adding: ‘We Failed You’

12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Does anyone here seem to think that today’s news conference will change the course of the Bankruptcy?

Not really, in this sense:

1. The plan was going down in flames anyway. This just reaffirms it.
2. The TCC was going to demand tougher YP standards. This just reaffirms it.
3. Johnson may (or may not) have gotten subpoenaed, now  he 100% will get deposed by like EVERYONE.
4. The TCC wanted $1.5 billion? Yep. That just got more likely.

Where it comes in the longer term, post-bankruptcy

1. The bankruptcy covers claims prior to February 2020. All future claims? Johnson is their star witness. As I noted and Kosnoff put it better: he'll be in depositions for the rest of his life.
2. The BSA is going to get put under some kind of receivership as it pertains to YP. It doesn't want to report data? Too bad. It doesn't want to name names? Too bad. It doesn't want to hire outside auditors annually? Too bad.
3. Membership is going to take another hit. That 1 million scouts by 2025? Yeah, maybe not.
4. Congress may in fact at this point step in and hold hearings similar to the USA Gymnastics. Don't bet the house on it, but it is now a better-than-0% chance.