CynicalScouter

The Chartered Organization Rep. I guess theoretically the Institutional Head could direct the COR to do it or do it themselves. That's it.

They absolutely are more broken. And offering 1920s solutions to 2020 problem is the definition of anachronistic.

Because there is a large and vocal contingent who want things "the way they were." Except, of course, that that program they remember with such fond memories was developed for a time that no longer exists and for a nation and society that simply will not embrace it. Organisms and organizations have three choices: move, adapt, or die. Since Boy Scouts of America isn't going to move, that leaves adapt or die. And I honestly thing some of the people where would rather see a dead but "pure" Boy Scouts of America vs. one that adapts.

And speaking of Kosnoff https://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/1319582/victims-coalition-seeks-expanded-role-in-boy-scouts-ch-11

Except that, and this is important, Kosnoff is not the lead lawyer in the bankruptcy proceeding. On the contrary, the actual lead attorneys (the tort claimants' committee) want him OUT of the proceedings.

And it will. The "endless lawsuits" will all end, one way of the other, in 2021. The claims deadline is in a month.

One person lied, therefore all the victims claiming abuse against the BSA are liars. Got it.

This isn't a "broad brush lawsuit". Have you read it or any of the ones filed? Or the claims filed with the court? They specific dates, times, locations, etc. And if they don't (which I've been told many do NOT) they will be dismissed for "failure to state a claim." And the suit is claimants vs. BSA and Councils. The fact that the scout leader may (or may not) have been molesting kids at the YMCA does NOT have any bearing on the question of whether or not they molested this particular kid at this particular scout event/unit. There are several lawyers involved here. Those are only

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? Th

Simple: the the claimant cannot even provide sufficient information to assert a claim, it is going to be dismissed. Again, there's this myth that you simply have to say "I was abused, pay me" and then suddenly the person is going to get cash. That's not the case. At all.

Exactly. Even before all these claims, BSA was dying and hemorrhaging money and membership. This is not post-WW II Americana. The dig-in-your-heels approach to homosexuality and allowing for girls in Cubs/Scouts, BSA saw to it that once the change of mind did occur (e.g. allowing girls in and openly homosexual scouts and scouters) that it was too late for a large percentage of people. The abuse claims and bankruptcy are simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

So what? I'm not sure I understand. Are you arguing that if an Assistant Scoutmaster was molesting Scouts, the fact that the same person may have been molesting kids at the YMCA makes it OK? Remember, the attorney is hired by a particular client (John Scout). That the ASM was molesting James YMCA-Person does NOT mean the attorney has to serve as that person's attorney, too. And that's the point behind discovery. There's this notion that all you have to do is file a claim and BSA is going to be forced to pay. That's not the deal, at all. The idea is that post-November 16 the claims will

The point is that you are arguing that not for profits should have NO liability whatsoever from tort claims because to do otherwise is to "penalize" or "punish" the people they serve. Again, that is dangerous and unjustified. Yes, if Feeding America is sued and forced to pay damages that means less money to pay for the food banks they support. But that fact does NOT justify allowing them to violate any civil tort they want and wrap themselves up in immunity. Being a not for profit does NOT and should NOT give you carte blanche to simply do whatever it is you want and thereby obtain c

The work "penalize" implies punishment. Kids are not being "punished" any more than people without food are "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued. But let me ask you a question: are people without food "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued and is forced to pay for tort claims/damages? EDIT: And even if using your cramped definition of "penalized", people without food ARE "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued and is forced to pay for tort claims/damages, does that in your mind mean Feeding America should be immune from civil suits?

The lawsuits against BSA are not "penalizing" the kids of today any more than people without food are "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued. Nice use of loaded language. I reject your premise and charaterization.

And I think that's the point people keep glossing over here. BSA (and the Catholic Church) were responsible under numerous theories: Duty to care/duty to care for a minor/duty of reasonable care. National and the Councils took upon itself a duty to not act in a negligent manner with respect to the youth in their care. Negligent retention: National and the Councils failed to remove abusive scout leaders fast enough Negligent supervision: National and the Councils failed to oversee/supervise the abusive scout leaders Negligent training: National and the Councils failed to

I expect BSA and local Councils will pay. But your doom scenario (HA camps sold, council camps closed, etc.) is not automatically a given. As for the "penalize the children", this same argument can be made to shield/shelter/protect any not-for-profit that commits a tort. Can't sue Feeding America for any tort, after all that would "punish" those who do not get enough food. What you are proposing is that any not-for-profit or charity becomes lawsuit proof because any claim against the not-for-profit or charity "penalizes the hungry people today" or "penalizes the homeless peop

Yep. And one last thing you keep skipping over and over. What will insurance be forced to cover. You simply skip over it so you can offer a false choice between two false premises. If the total liability/claims is = insurance coverage, BSA will NOT have to sell local camps, sell HA bases, etc. Insurance premiums will rise, but that is all. We don't know what claims valued at how much we are even talking about here yet.

Yes, but the point is that there are two levels of liability here. 1) The perpetrators who did it. 2) The BSA entities (National and Councils) that oversaw these volunteers and failed to exercise sufficient care of the children under their care/duty to care.

It is not a punt. We are discussing a) who bears the legal liability and b) legal responsibility to pay. That's the real choice here. It is a question of law that is currently pending before the court. We have no idea to what extent the BSA's liability and responsibility to pay (vs. the insurance companies) will be and if that will require what you are describing.

Congress wants absolutely nothing to do with this mess. They did NOT repeal the charter in 2000 (Scouting for All Act which would have repealed the charter for refusal to allow homosexuals in). It was rejected 362-12 with 51 House members voting "Present". Yes, in some theoretical sense Congress can amend the enabling statute. That's not going to happen. As for your two premises, again, I reject that those are the only two options. I've already demonstrated there is a third option (insurance companies carry most of the load) that is currently pending before the court.

And they can be. But under the charter, as written, the new BSA leadership would be chosen by...the old BSA leadership.

You keep changing what you are asking (it went from "deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?" to "sue in perpetuity". No one is saying perpetual suits.) And you are offering a false choice/dichotomy that immediately rejects a third option. So no, I don't accept the premises of your question, namely, that those are the only two choices.

If you look certainly since the 1980s there's been a sense (and unwritten rule) that Congress will not issue new charters. The idea of a "Congressional Charter" as being some prestige thing is sorta, well, antiquated. So, while I cannot see Congress going out of their way to pull BSA's charter, I also don't see it lifting a finger to help get BSA out of civil liability.

Not conflating. There's a third option Insurance companies pay the bulk of the abuse victims compensation. BSA's financial damage is substantial but not catastrophic (fire sales of Sea Base, Philmont) or even fatal