CynicalScouter

Quote

Plaintiffs’ lawyers note that with tens of thousands of claims, even a modest payout for each could reach into the billions of dollars. If 30,000 claims are paid at $10,000 each, for example, the total would be $300 million. But at $100,000 or more each, the total would soar to $3 billion or beyond.

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.

Quote

Some of the Scouts’ insurers have refused to cover payouts in sex abuse cases, contending that the organization could have prevented the abuse that led to the claims, court records show.

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.

23 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Maybe not trained in BSA policy. Shooting sports is not allowed to be a Pack activity, as this one is described as. It can only be a district or council activity. 

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"

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Schools, churches, and municipalities are also liable in the look-back windows.

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.

Quote

5. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, this section shall not apply to any claim made against a city, county, town, village, fire district or school district for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age,incest as defined in section 255.27, 255.26 or 255.25 of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, or the use of a child in a sexual performance as defined in section 263.05 of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age.

3 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

Correct. There are a few court cases that establish that Police officers literally do not need to intervene if they are witnessing a crime taking place. They have no legal duty to "protect." https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/

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

20 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I continue to not see the distinction here.

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.

37 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I recognize you can sue.  What I'm saying is ... from what I understand ... the recent law changes that allowed re-establishing expired liabilities ... even decades in the past ... again from my understanding ... did not re-open expired liabilities to schools and other government organizations.  

If it was extended, then these lawsuits should be hitting every city, state and school district that chartered scouts for the last 50 years.  If you want deep pockets, go after the school districts.

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

Quote

5. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, this section shall not apply to any claim made against a city, county, town, village, fire district or school district for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age,incest as defined in section 255.27, 255.26 or 255.25 of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, or the use of a child in a sexual performance as defined in section 263.05 of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age.

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Late last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein allowed the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice to join mediation discussions, giving a group representing 28,000 clients a say in any future settlement agreement. 

So far, 7,300 victims represented by the 10 law firms in the coalition have signed consent forms allowing the attorneys to negotiate on their behalf. More are expected to sign before the November deadline to file proof of their allegations. 

More at source: Scouts' abuse claims may become largest case against a single national organization

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/23/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-claims-may-grow-tens-thousands/3718751001/

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.

2 minutes ago, jjlash said:

Units absolutely can raise funds in the name of Scouting.  Fill out the "unit money earning application", get it approved by the district exec and off you go for any number of sales or service fundraisers.  What units cannot do is ask for "donations" - i.e. please give us money (for a project or not) just because we asked.  That avenue is reserved for councils.

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

Deleted

31 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

That the individual states and federal government did not launch aggressive investigations nor shutdown Scouting and other youth organizations clearly demonstrates a willingness to allow youth to be abused.

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.

Quote

The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf – through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty – which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.

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.

12 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Proposal: As this in part was a country wide issue, in addition to shutting down the BSA and selling it to settle claims, I lobby for a special tax fund to pay each victim of child abuse $25,000,000 per incident.  Everyone in the country knew that child abuse was happening.  That the government did not shut down all youth serving organizations that reported an incidence of abuse was clearly a sign that we were not doing enough as a country.  Our country clearly was at fault here.  We all need to recognize our culpability for this.  Just because we have come along later in history doesn't mean that we are any less responsible as a country for the actions of those we predated us.

The more I look at this, the more I come to the same conclusion.

So it's OK not to sue schools systems or the government, but it is the BSA?  I'm not following the logic.

The same arguments that apply to why you hold the BSA responsible apply to the government.  The same arguments that apply to why you don't hold the government responsible apply to the BSA.  You don't get to argue one without the other.

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.

14 minutes ago, FaithfulScouter said:

Sadly the Charter Org has known about the deterioration in program for more than a year, however no one would step up to take the Scoutmaster position.

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.

Quote

Yes, the unit has a replacement recruited and committed to take over the nominee’s position as unit leader if necessary.

Replacement’s name ________________________________________________Unit committee chair initial  ____________

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.

On 3/5/2009 at 8:57 PM, rkfrance said:

Before I took on the role of a commissioner, I had been involved with several units. None of the units I served had any real plan for leader succession. It was always milk the poor sucker dry who was in the position at the time until he/she either moved on, got burned-out, or just disappeared without notice. Then it was the mad scramble to find the next sucker, er... volunteer! Many times the scramble turned into plodding for months, until the next roundup or right before recharter. Then, many times, someone was cornered for a signature with little or no expectation of that person stepping up to take on the responsibility of the position.

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

Quote

Council or Unit Assets Upon Dissolution

In the event of the dissolution of a unit or the revocation or lapse of its charter, unit funds and assets must be used to first satisfy any outstanding unit obligations. Any remaining assets obtained with funds raised in the name of Scouting must be redeployed for Scouting use in the local area. Any assets obtained with funds from the chartered organization or parents of registered members may be redeployed as agreed upon by the chartered organization and local council.

Compare the above to the 2007 version

Quote

In the event of the dissolution of a unit or the revocation or lapse of its charter, the unit committee shall apply unit funds and property to the payment of unit obligations and shall turn over the surplus, if any, to the local council, if there is one, or if there is no local council, dispose of the same in accordance with the direction of the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America. In the case of a chartered organization, any funds or equipment which may have been secured as property of the unit shall be held in trust by the chartering organization or the chartered local council, as may be agreed upon, pending reorganization of the unit or for the promotion of the program of the Boy Scouts of America.

10 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

and that the sum total of all those legitimate cases was and is greater than the liquid assets BSA would have available to pay them and still continue normal operations.

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.

Quote

 

According to Bloomberg, the BSA is fighting hundreds of claims and a rash of litigation spurred on by the revelation in 2012 that the organization had kept records of thousands of sexual abuse and misconduct allegations. The BSA has described the records as the “ineligible volunteer files” and said they were part of an effort to protect children by spotlighting people who shouldn’t have been allowed to work with them in the first place.

The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and First State Insurance Co. in Texas have both turned their back on the BSA, arguing that the “ineligible volunteer files” show the organization hasn’t done enough to protect children against sexual abuse and misconduct, and hasn’t done enough to warn parents of the risks.

Both insurers are arguing in court that they shouldn’t have to pay claims related to abuse that the BSA could have reasonably prevented. The BSA and several councils sued both insurers for $13.5 million in June. In a separate legal battle, insurers are refusing to cover sex-abuse settlements and legal defense fees for the BSA, arguing that the events were not accidents and could have been prevented.

 

59 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

Could that be because many of those claims are nothing more than a response to lawyers hawking the idea of a big payday?

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".

On 10/16/2020 at 3:58 PM, CynicalScouter said:

OK, let's get back to the Chapter 11 so I can dispel some myths here.

The November 16 date does NOT mean that anyone who files any scrap of paper that says "I wuz abused, pay me!" is going to get a payout.

Here's the claim form. I am going to walk people through step by step here.

PART 1: CONFIDENTIALITY

Do you want your identity released to the general public or not?

PART 2: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

Who are you (the abuse claimant" and who is your lawyer (if you have one)

PART 3: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVOR

What's your background? This may come up in the context of loss of income from the abuse. See in particular Section E. Involvement with Scouting which asks for what unit/years

PART 4: NATURE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE

This is incredibly detailed. People are asked for dates, times, locations, individuals, units. When was the abuse? What kind of abuse (in graphic, graphic terms)? This goes on for almost 4 pages.

PART 5: IMPACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE

What was the impact of the abuse on the person? Mental? Physical? Emotional? Financial?

PART 6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Did you sue BSA before?

SIGNATURE

And I quote

I know/see many here simply look at everyone who is filing a claim is a bunch of greedy liars who are just making wild accusations without any specificity and BSA and the Councils are just innocent victims. Hopefully reading through the above will put the lie to some of that.

 

Quote

(a) documents and information regarding assets that the Examinees contend are “restricted assets” (the “Restricted Assets,” and the documents and information concerning Restricted Assets, the “Restricted Asset Information”), 2 (b) troop and camp rosters (the “Rosters”), and (c) Insurance Policies for claims arising from or concerning sexual abuse (the “Insurance Policies” and, together with the Restricted Asset Information and the Rosters, the “Discovery Requests”)3 from the BSA and the Local Councils.

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.

15 hours ago, ParkMan said:

It should learn it's lesson and really strive to assume a non-political position.

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.

31 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

My COR got a call from our CO, which happens to be a First Baptist Church, this morning.  The Executive Pastor has seen the referenced article and now the CO wants me(Scoutmaster) and COR to meet with the Executive Pastor and the church's lawyer.  Not sure how this will turn out.

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.

Quote

approximately 188 (or approximately 3.5%) reflect that the alleged sexual abuse occurred in the year 2000 or thereafter;

The only other remain

20 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Scouting has to get out of the politics business.

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

Just now, Eagledad said:

Show me that quote " In context".

I linked it.

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

6 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

then he should provide it by itself without being condescending.

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.

14 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

You want to set your personal standard on others while trying to appear open mind with your Local Option.

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.

27 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Even though you control your opinion. Are you afraid the other person jut might change you mind? Do you really think your information is the only information on the subject?

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.

27 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Does personal experience that doesn't agree with your information count for anything.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Anecdotal evidence is not adequate to prove something.

13 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

10. I and others working at my direction have reviewed the Claims Report. As of October 9, 2020, the Claims Report reflects that 5,487 Sexual Abuse Survivor Proofs of Claim were filed and assigned a claim number, and that:

• approximately 1,580 (or approximately 28%) contain no information regarding the Local Council associated with the claim;
• approximately 2,271 (or approximately 41%) contain no information regarding the chartered organization associated with the claim;
• approximately 188 (or approximately 3.5%) reflect that the alleged sexual abuse occurred in the year 2000 or thereafter; [...]

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.

2 hours ago, David CO said:

I'm not a lawyer either.  Yes, part of the charter fees was for insurance.  I don't think this relieves the CO's from liability.  Regardless of who purchased the insurance policy, if the CO's are under-insured, I believe they are still liable for any judgement in excess of the insurance.

Exactly. Insurance only covers up to the stated claim limit.

2 hours ago, David CO said:

It wouldn't surprise me if they try to collect from the CO's insurance policies as well as the BSA policy.  I don't think the CO's insurance company would be willing to contribute to the bankruptcy fund.  Each CO would have to be sued individually.

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.