CynicalScouter

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.

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"

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.

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

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.

Correct. In the case of NY, the law did NOT allow for waiver/extension of claims against local and state government.

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.

That is apparently a bridge too far for many people here. The fundraising rules are there to be ignored.

Deleted

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.

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

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?

RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA June 2018 revisions and current September 2020 says same Compare the above to the 2007 version

There's also two secondary aspect here (and they may not be totally "secondary") 1) This ends all claims at once. Even if every case/claim was legitimate, it would take decades of litigation. Even if only 70% or 60% or 50% were, it would be a quicker and "cleaner" solution to simply find the claims that at least meet the minimal requirements for filing a claim, figure out the assets, and divide. Otherwise, BSA gets "abuse lawsuit trial" in headlines for another 10+ years. 2) The insurance companies balked. This gets skipped over (a lot) but the other major reason BSA had to file was because several insurers refused to honor the policies claiming that either a) the policies didn't cover what BSA was accused of or b) the policies were void due to BSA's actions. That's why Hartford and other insurance companies are part of the bankruptcy as an "Adversarial" action.

Yes, but herein lies the the interests of the National and the insurance companies. They are going to want (and are asking, see the claim's form) something more than "someone did something bad to me at some time when I was a scout".

Reading between the lines, TCC believes National and the Local Councils are holding out on them. My reading 1) TCC thinks there's more assets than what National and the Councils are admitting to 2) TCC thinks the "restricted assets" are not actually restricted 3) TCC thinks there's a lot more possible claimants and the rosters will indicate (AND THEIR COs) 4) TCC thinks that the rosters will reveal additional units (AND THEIR COs) 5) TCC thinks there are a lot more insurance companies potentially on the hook. I keep coming back to that $1.5 billion number that they (or other attorneys for claimants) tossed around. There's no way, even if you liquidate national, you get there. And even councils combined and liquidated get you there. Troop rosters get you COs. COs get you new sources of assets and insurance claims.

Yes, but the problem is what is a "non-political position" when EVERYTHING is a political position? Masks. What kind of meat you serve (or don't) at an event. Who your CO is. Everything. The mere act of standing for the National Anthem? Political statement.

I am expecting that call with my unit shortly. There are two real questions: 1) When was your unit created/founded? 2) Were their prior units? Some COs have seen units live, die, and live again. 3) Is the CO ready to handle whatever bad press comes about scouting? There's still this perception that the abuse occurred recently. But as the item above noted. The only other remain

Everything can be politicized. Everything has been politicized. That's not a slight on Scouting as much as it is a reflection of modern America

I linked it. I'm not going to "humble" myself to you. I don't care who you think you are.

This coming from someone who recently posted that anyone who has not been in scouting since they were children should "humble" themselves to you? Yeah. ok.

I would argue that there's got to be, generally, some limits to the Local Options. Otherwise, you don't have a Boy Scouts of America program/unit at all. And given that Boy Scouts of America owns (via the Congressional Charter) the rights to that material and the use of the names/terms that means they get to set this. But where's the line? Is it "do whatever you want, but you cannot touch advancement?" That reduces BSA to nothing more than the Guide to Advancement the various Handbooks (from Tiger through the Scouts, BSA Handbooks, plus the corresponding material for Sea Scouts and Venture) the merit badge books Note even Guide to Safe Scouting/YPT makes that cut. Is that all BSA should be are those documents and everything else is "Local Option"? That's not a rhetorical question.

First, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. As qwazse amply showed in peer reviewed literature, your assumptions regarding same-gendered education are simply wrong. I'm not worried about my mind being changed when the data points in that direction. I am worried about sexists explicitly (or implicitly) harming girls education and development with outdated, outmoded, and unscientifically based notions of "proper" educational roles. The plural of anecdote is not data. Anecdotal evidence is not adequate to prove something.

This is consistent with what I had been told by someone on my Council's executive committee: only about 40% of claims are coming in with enough specificity as to be eligible for a claim.

Exactly. Insurance only covers up to the stated claim limit. This is why the latest filings from the tort claimants' committee (main set of lawyers for those claiming abuse) is looking for the names of all COs. They want to go after them next. And the insurance companies might want to contribute to a fund if they knew they would/could walk away with 100% certainty that no more claims will come up in the future.