CynicalScouter

Well, that didn't take long. The judge hasn't even officially signed the order for the aggregators to be deposed and AVA Law is objecting to the proposed order. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2d21edbf-6d39-40f6-98d5-2aa553da2138_6166.pdf In short: the insurers listed 4 entities they wanted to depose in their original motion: Versus Claims Service LLC Consumer Attorney Marketing Group Archer Systems Stratos Legal In the reply brief the expanded it to a fifth: Reciprocity Industries, LLC, which is owned by Andrew Van Arsdale (the "AVA" of "AVA Law"). AVA is now saying, in effect, the insurers named 4 entities IN THE MOTION, the judge say depositions were limited to “permit the deposition of the aggregators that were listed in that particular motion" therefore they can't have Reciprocity deposed because it was not named IN THE MOTION.

That...would actually be legal. All that law requires is that scouts have EQUAL access vs. any other outside group. Of course if NO ONE is allowed in, that's equal access. We have a school district in my council that has that as a policy. It was put in place not for scouts but for other groups that some of our more conservative parents object to. It was and is far easier from administrative and legal perspective to say NO ONE or ANY ONE. If you start to get into "Yes your group, no to your group" you get into lawsuit territory.

At least three states have state laws that require that scouts be allowed to address students during school hours at least once per year.

Thanks! I remember that. It started with looking at an Alabama council and quickly went national. Boy Scouts investigated by FBI over membership FBI investigates Boy Scouts for fraud The question was: is this limited to just one council or system wide? Answer: system wide. The argument National made at the time was, in effect, "we just rely on whatever the councils tell us. If they tell us there are 20 scouts, all last name Doe, living at the same address, how were we supposed to know?" Etc.

Yep. And how many COs actually did so? I have the utmost sympathy for the mess this is making for today’s COs But I also recognize that BSA pretended like COs were exercising any kind of oversight and COs were happy to perpetuate that myth.

If you want to get litigious about it, there's a federal law that prohibits that kind of conduct. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/boyscouts.html Overview of the Law On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Part of No Child Left Behind is the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, Section 9525 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by Section 901 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (the Boy Scouts Act), which applies to public elementary and secondary schools, local educational agencies (LEAs), and State educational agencies (SEAs) that receive funds made available through the Department of Education. Under the Boy Scouts Act, which became effective on January 8, 2002, no such public school, LEA or SEA that provides an opportunity for one or more outside youth or community groups to meet on school premises or in school facilities before or after school hours shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, or any other youth group listed in Title 36 of the United States Code as a patriotic society. OCR is charged with enforcing the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. Complaints alleging violations of this law may be filed using the OCR online complaint form or by contacting the OCR office with authority to handle complaints where the institution or entity you are complaining about is located. 10-13-04: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 3-25-02: "Dear Colleague" letter 11-15-02: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

There was an infamous program scoutpower of 1976 I think it was called where hundreds of scouts and dozens of units were created on paper. as long as the checks cleared to pay for the scouts registration people didn’t care. Inflated numbers worked just fine.

And I am sure, BSA can show that each and every application and annual charter agreement included language that the CO was responsible for their adult leaders. Does this look familiar at all?

The push to register came decades after most of the abuse occurred and was in fact a reaction to the abuse. BSA put the registration system in place in order to try and keep track of who had access to these children and to run those names against a) the IV files and b) the criminal background checks. The ScoutParent program wasn't until the 1990s and that was to address the need that if these people are going to be camping out and involved in scouting, Scouting needs to be able to do a background check. Today that's unit scouter reserve and college scouter reserve. If the CO's were not prepared to at least do their own cursory examination of these adults, then the blame's on them. It was their signatures on the applications. BSA didn't hold a gun to their head. Now, the COs abdicated their obligation to exercise due diligence? Too bad, that's on them. Maybe next time, don't let unregistered adults with no criminal background checks near kids for prolonged periods of time.

Now, a LOT of lawyers filed objections to these efforts to get depositions of the lawyers and aggregators. Most notably the Coalition in the form of multiple documents starting with 2043 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872931_2043.pdf 1) We didn't commit fraud. We were running out of time. The judge only permitted attorney signed statements starting in late October. Attorneys had a choice: either let their clients claims lapse or sign as fast as possible. They opted to fast sign. 2) The attorney-signed forms are only a tiny fraction of the claims. 3) The insurers lack standing to challenge these claims; only BSA may do so 4) Signing that claim does NOT waive attorney-client privilege and does NOT make an attorney a fact witness. All that the attorney has to do make a "reasonable" effort.

So, just looking at the legal filings (which is why I am putting this here rather than the other thread) what at the insurers going to be wanting to ask the aggregators? We know based on filings what it will look like. The original document filed was 1974 (sealed version) and 1975 (unsealed) https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientId=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d%3e).&tagId=1153&noFrom=1975 First, the legalese. When a victim/claimant signs a statement, the victim/claimant is saying this claim is based on THEIR knowledge. However, many of these claims were not signed by the victim/claimant. They were signed by lawyers for the victim/claimant. And under the law, that means the LAWYER has now taken on some responsibility here. There was an enormous amount of pressure put on the judge by the TCC, the insurers, and BSA to NOT allow mass signing/attorney signings. The Coalition, however, fought back. "Why should every other claimant get to have their attorney sign proofs of claim but not our clients?" they argued. And then they said this Nevertheless, the judge did permit the signature by the claimant’s legal representative, but she had warnings. The order is 1551 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857120_1551.pdf And so we get to document filed was 1974 (sealed version) and 1975 (unsealed). 1975 says in effect four things Your Honor, we warned you this was going to happen and it did. Thousands of claims signed by the same lawyer, including several hundred signed by the same lawyer ON THE SAME DAY at a rate of 1 per 3 or 4 seconds in some cases. There is NO way the attorneys vetted anything. The aggregators were "completing" forms for victims and then getting the lawyers to sign. So, it wasn't 100% the victims and it was getting mass/blast signed by lawyers who weren't vetting anything. The aggregators then engaged in what can be described as fraud and/or forgery (at worse) or sloppiness suggesting no one was vetting anything (at best). Duplicate signatures. Xeroxed or cut and paste signatures. Etc. Because the lawyers signed these, they are now fact witnesses to whether the claims were vetted and are accurate or not. An attorney who signs must AT LEAST make a "pre-filing inquiry" of the claimant. So, the judge agreed to let the insurers have at the claims aggregators and left the question of whether these attorneys were actually doing any vetting for later.

If UMC is sued into the ground, program will be the least of folks worries. And I get it from a programmatic perspective, but as I noted the bishop I linked to above and other senior leaders I've seen are making LEGAL claims, namely, that BSA chose the adult leaders (as if some how the churches were bystanders and BSA just reached into their congregations). The signatures of the COs and IHs from days gone by are going to demonstrate that the churches were signing agreements that a) "vouched" for these adult leaders and b) included language about maintaining oversight and responsibility. Decades of treating those charted agreements as just annual paperwork to let the unit have the fellowship hall once a week are about to come back to haunt them. Moreover, the other questions is where is the money coming from? Past a certain point, BSA's tapped out and the LCs have already put up what they consider THEIR contribution. Where's the extra money coming from? I suspect it will be a combination of a) the UMC b) the LCs will have to give more and c) BSA will have to give more as well.

And herein lies the rub because while the message they may want to be getting out is “hang in there” it’s coming across as a “abandon ship”. but I will also tell you there are several bishops and other senior Methodist leaders who were sending out the message that BSA, NOT the COs, we’re selecting these abusive leaders. https://www.neumc.org/newsdetail/15389972 ”The Facilities Use Agreement is similar to a lease allowing the scout unit to use your space, but leaving the scout unit with FULL RESPONSIBILITY for everything else, especially including the selection of leaders, which the BSA has previously misrepresented that scout leaders are chosen by the church. The proposed Facilities Use Agreement is being recommended precisely because it contains NO SUCH REPRESENTATION.” I will tell you right now If I am an attorney for claimants and I now see an official statement from a Methodist bishop saying that BSA and BSA alone was selecting these leaders and not the COs, I am getting that bishop in for a deposition tomorrow and demanding copies off the annual charter agreements going back to the 1950s and even 1920s that show in fact yes the COs were signing off/ approving these scout leaders. Word of advice if you really do know some of the people on that ad hoc committee: they better get their story straight and quick and get that bishop to take down that claim ASAP or the claimants and the insurance companies and their attorneys are going to eat the UMCs alive. we already know for example the insurance companies have monitored this forum as well as reddit and other places and submitted letters from other bishops as evidence.

It is still a horror show for units because of whiplash. Imagine what they are going through not knowing if they'll get a recharter out of the UMC church they are attached so they have to scramble to get a new CO but THEN there's the possibility by November 15 (I'm just picking a date here) all is well and the UMC church either a) will recharter or b) decides that it isn't worth they risk anyway. And recall that the Methodist Scouting FB folks (an official page of the Methodist Scouting Committee) said they will have an "honest update" by September 20, the day before BSA is set to defend Restructuring Plan 4.0 which does NOT include COs.

Independent confirmation of what I had only heard rumored/suspected as the case: UMC churches are telling units the no-recharter is explicitly (vs. implicitly) about putting leverage on BSA. https://discussions.scouting.org/t/united-methodist-church/246903/51

Correct: 1) The judge has given VERBAL approval for the insurance companies to be there because, well, it was their idea/their motion. 2) Anyone else who wants to show up (TCC, FCR, and Coalition) needs to get the judge's permission. And the insurance companies submitted to the court a proposed order that a) formally allows the insurers to take deposition (the judge gave permission ORALLY, it has to be in written form and signed) b) and allows the TCC, FCR, and Coalition to show up AND participate. That means the TCC, FCR, and Coalition lawyers will get to ask their own questions of the aggregators at the very least.

Attorneys for Insurance companies file papers indicating they are moving ASAP on depositions of the claims aggregators. The TCC/FCR/Coalition all agree on the way the depositions will happen, they just need the judge to sign the formal order. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dac4ce83-d67a-4634-9260-e6346451675f_6162.pdf 1) Insurers get to issue subpoena demands on Verus Claims Services LLC, Consumer Attorney Marketing Group, Archer Systems, and Stratos Legal. 2) They also get to depose, but guess who else get to show up for THAT party (THOSE parties)? This is big. The ORIGINAL order for depositions simply had the insurance companies there. See page 38-39. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf The TCC/FCR/Coalition have asked to be there. Why is that relevant? Remember that the accusation is that the aggregators were working/doing slimy stuff on behalf of the Coalition and their lawyers. So, are the Coalition there to ask questions of the aggregators? Or to advise them to shut their yaps if there are questions that come up that may implicate the Coalition lawyers?

"Do what we want or 1/3 to 1/2 of your organization walks out the door." In a very technical sense yes, BSA leadership was in control and could have said no. But at least early on in BSA history, that would have effectively mean suicide for the program.

BSA was not always in control of its program. LDS drove so, so much. 1) The entire Varsity program was to appease the LDS. 2) Allowing segregated units/councils was to appease LDS which until it was SUED INTO SHAME in the 1970s prohibited African-America leaders. In LDS units, PLs had to be LDS youth leaders and since African American Scouts couldn't be youth leaders, there were NO LDS units with African American leadership 3) Things as mundane as "Why can't BSA units have raffles/games of chance" were all put into to appease LDS. For raffles/games of chance it was because that is technically gambling. Etc. 4) And perhaps most critically, we now have documented proof that what became youth protection training (YPT) was withheld from scouts for at least a decade (late 1970s into the 1980s) over LDS objections over sexuality and discussions of it. And even when it WAS put it, the IV files released indicate the LDS units were given broad latitude/exemptions to mandatory reporting. So no, BSA was not "always in control of its program"

Yep. The survey was garbage. It was poorly designed and executed. As was noted: in SOME councils only K3 got it. In SOME councils Board, in other Councils everyone. That is like just a basic sampling error that it would be rejected from a high school stats class

I want to point something out and I guess I never realized this until about 3 years ago. Baden-Powell NEVER put anything into the original Scout Oath (Scout Promise) about reverance. Most other WOSM (or what became WOSM) members didn't either. That was 100% a US thing. I will do my duty to God and the King. I will do my best to help others, whatever it costs me. I know the scout law, and will obey it. I read the version of the original Manual that Baden-Powell wrote for India. He was clear it was meant for ALL faiths and faith practices. Adherence to the divine ("Duty to God") never changed, but later on B-P got very, very nervous with how BSA became attached at the hip to churches.

That ship sailed so early on in the BSA history (1920?). I've read LDS was the first CO. They literally walked a check to Texas every year. Yes, they shouldn't have done it. But early on in scouting history, I can understand why they cut that deal.

Right and here I will express sympathy (gasp!) for the Board. They were being advised on what to do with the sexual abuse cases and next-best-steps. If they honestly relied on their lawyers advice, I can't blame them for any stutter steps.

I'll agree with you here 100%. Chapter 11 was a done deal when states started to open their SoLs. There was no way to stop that train.

Here the thing: who selects the nominating committee? EXISTING BOARD. Or what they do (and my district and council did this a long time in the bad old days of the 2010s) is announce "nominations are open" only to existing board members. Well, guess who gets to be nominated? The board members and their buddies. And again, my council is pay-to-play so you best bring a checkbook to that nominating committee.