CynicalScouter

Hearing Date 2021 Hearing scheduled for 8/30/2021 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware Agenda (and zoom link) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/49aca881-6256-4550-a8f6-e93d204a36ac_6124.pdf

Not until the recently. This was the form from about 2009-2019 (note it still mentions Varsity Scouting which died out in 2017/2018) that had none of that information. http://btdistrict.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/New_Youth_Application.pdf https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/6e95f281-b831-46ec-955e-e05a9ca37cbf/downloads/1cdfoqoj9_758415.pdf

This is a temporary state. At one point or another the bankruptcy will end and scouting post-bankruptcy will emerge. Then we can go back to fighting insta-palms. Again.

One possibility, and ChildUSA's report kinda leaned in on this, is that there is something inherent about Scouting that makes it more susceptible than those other programs and that Scouting by its very nature can never shed child sexual abuse in the way those others programs can (bold in original) https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-Victims-of-Abuse-in-Scouting-Part-1-1.pdf "It is our main finding that Scouts provided an unsafe environment for children. While the goals of nature exploration and survival skill development are admirable, the structure of Scouting was insufficient at ensuring the safety of children. 78.7% of the abused Scouts in this survey were assaulted at a Scout camp, meeting, or activity. By taking children into nature with only few adults, no oversight, and no child defensible spaces, Scouts exposes children to scenarios which make them situationally weak and vulnerable to abuse from perpetrators. Scouts is mistaken in their belief that teaching a child to build a fire or earn a badge is equivalent to situational strength. In everyday life, children are often physically weak compared to adults. Instead, children rely on safe adults, buildings, and other factors for situational strength, and thus security. In Scouts, children are taken away from safe communities of adults, put in communal spaces like showers and church basements, and brought across state lines far away from their homes. Situational disempowerment seems routine in Scouting, and it creates repeated instances in which children are susceptible to abuse."

Yep. BSA was unique in that it actively attempted to track/trace this issue. That doesn't mean it was/was not happening in 4H, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers, YMCA, the Boys Club. It just means they had no way of keeping track if it did.

Part of the RSA,the non-monterary relief portion, was focused one having a review of BSA's abuse policies. It might very well be that the review will in fact recommend that. "(A) The BSA forms a Child Protection Committee (“Committee”) of members from the BSA, Local Councils, the TCC, and the Coalition (including survivors). (1) No later than six months after the Effective Date, the BSA will present to the Committee on the BSA’s current Youth Protection Program (the “Program”). The BSA will report to the Committee regarding the Program and any changes thereto on an annual basis for a period of three years following the Effective Date. (2) Following that presentation, the BSA and Committee will work with an entity engaged by the BSA that is selected with the consultation of the Committee that is not currently affiliated with the BSA to evaluate the Program (the “Evaluating Entity”). The Evaluating Entity will have expertise in the prevention of youth sexual abuse. (i) Any evaluation will be comprehensive in nature and include input from current BSA volunteers and professionals, survivors of sexual abuse while involved with Scouting, the members of the Committee, and the Evaluating Entity. (ii) The Evaluating Entity will report to the Committee assessing the current Program and make specific recommendations for reasonable improvements to the Program that may include mechanisms for the elimination of abuse and accurate and annual reporting regarding the results of the Program, including confirmed instances of sexual abuse that is made available to the public (the “Prospective Reporting”). (iii) The BSA will engage with the Evaluating Entity, and the Committee, and will take appropriate steps as necessary to improve the Program. Changes to the Program will be reported on the BSA’s Program website and training will be reasonably adjusted to reflect changes."

Would this then work? “If your child joins this pack/troop her or she may be sexually abused.”? ”BSA will try not to have people sexually abuse your child, but we cannot guaranteed it won’t happen”? Or are you suggesting what is known as an “internet danger” disclaimer or warning? That scouting is so Per se or inherently dangerous that anyone who agrees must acknowledge the inherent danger?

That's what we've told him over and over and over. That 82,500 is NOT a scientifically valid count of total amount of scouts abused. It is, at best, a count of total number of SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS FILED IN THIS PARTICULAR BANKRUPTCY. And that is ALL it is. The message just is not getting through.

So, you want a disclosure statement at sign up saying that "your scout may be sexually abused"? This, by the way, is the information currently on the registration form. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-406.pdf Youth Protection Begins With You™. Child abuse is a serious problem in our society, and unfortunately, it can occur anywhere, even in Scouting. Youth safety is of paramount importance to Scouting. For that reason, the BSA continues to create and consistently improve its barriers to abuse. The BSA is committed to providing a safe environment for young people. To maintain a safe environment, the BSA provides parents and adult leaders with numerous online and printed resources and adult leaders must complete Youth Protection Training (YPT) and renew their training as required. Parents who participate in Scouting activities are highly recommended to complete YPT. To learn more about the BSA’s Youth Protection resources, go to www.scouting.org/training/youth-protection/. Mandatory Reporting All persons involved in Scouting must immediately report to local authorities any good-faith suspicion or belief that any child is or has been physically or sexually abused; physically or emotionally neglected; exposed to any form of violence or threat; or exposed to any form of sexual exploitation including the possession, manufacture, or distribution of child pornography, online solicitation, enticement, or showing of obscene material. No person may abdicate this reporting responsibility to any other person. Additionally, any known or suspected abuse or behavior that might put a youth at risk must also be reported to the local Scout executive or the Scouts First Helpline (1-844-SCOUTS1 or 1-844-726-8871) if your Scout executive or local council cannot be reached. All parents must review the How to Protect Your Children From Child Abuse: A Parent’s Guide booklet in the Cub Scout or Scouts BSA handbooks or at www.scouting.org/training/youth-protection/. Youth Protection Policies • Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader over 21 in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader over 21 must be present for any activity involving female youth. • One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting. These and other key Youth Protection policies are addressed in the training and at www.scouting.org/training/ youth-protection/. To learn about the BSA’s other health and safety policies, please review the online version of the Guide to Safe Scouting, the Scouter Code of Conduct, and the Sweet Sixteen of BSA Safety, which are available at www.scouting. org/health-and-safety

For example, at least one claimant has now come forward to try and get his claim filed post-bar date. Meaning his abuse is NOT part of the 82,500 count. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/08d00d9b-f3d7-4e65-b923-2860ee591eaa_6108.pdf I also personally know, and there are others here who have similarly indicated, they they personally know victim who opted NOT to file a claim for a host of reasons. In short, we know that a) 82,500 is the number of unique claims filed and b) that even that number is an undercount of total claims, much less abuse.

Ok, sorry. I'll drop it.

Not this again. Holy smokes not this again First, 130 million is based on pure conjecture to begin with. Second, the number of claimants is NOT IN ANY WAY a scientific sampling of the number of total abuse cases that occurred in Scouting because it suffers from any one of a half a dozen sampling errors, including but not limited to convenience sampling and self-selection bias. For the umteempth millionth time, trying to use 82,500 as an indicator of the total amount of ANYTHING is absurd from a sampling/statistics perspective. ANY Research Methodologist would FLUNK a student who tried to pull this in a Research Methods or Research Statistics class. PLEASE STOP USING 82,500 AS AN INDICATOR OF TOTAL ABUSE IN SCOUTING. It is an undercount. It is a known undercount. And continuing to use it to absolve BSA or to use it for ANY purpose other than "this is the number of claims filed in this particular bankruptcy" is asinine.

Even if every statute of limitations were lifted tomorrow that doesn’t suddenly generate more money. BSA has only but so much. local councils only but so much. Insurance policies have caps and limitations that cannot be suspended or rewritten by a court. There is no scenario here in which 82500 victims each get $1 million+ settlements.

Again: your evidence of such an agreement between Stang and BSA is… what? And of course it was nationwide. That is how bankruptcy works. I’ve never heard of a bankruptcy that only applies in some states but not others or discharges claims from some states but not others. and once again I would point out that it was the judge who directed nationwide distribution. The original BSA filing (the supposed Stang-BSA “agreement”) was silent on the issue. According to you this was part of the original BSA proposal (it want) that was unobjected to (5 different groups including the TCC opposed BSA’s original plan) and still again no proof of a BSA-Stang agreement. Put up your proof.

There's a provision in the RSA that says the person would go back to the Settlement Trustee instead and get money from the Settlement trust.

Given the nature of the pleadings, it appears the TCC and Stang were not part of some BSA conspiracy but instead, as is standard in ALL bankruptcies, BSA was required to give notice to ALL possible claimants. So, on this BSA-TCC-Stang conspiracy theory, I decided to take a look at the exact language used in a) BSA"s initial request and b) the judge's order. Initial request: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/799485_18.pdf Judge's order: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/820848_695.pdf First, note that the BSA NEVER specified in it is original request whether the solicitation was national or state by state. Yet the claim was BSA and Stang had "pillow talk" and already agreed to this. How odd that it never showed in the BSA proposal. 2) The judge's final order included the following language. and this I believe it is clear the purpose was not to somehow be part of some grand BSA-Stang-TCC conspiracy but was instead to give ALL possible claimants notice across the nation and that, REGARDLESS of statutes of limitations to at least get the claims in FIRST and then sort of the SoL issues later. Later, of course, being now.

And BSA disclosed that in the initial petition; they tried to have discussions in November 2019 and they quickly failed.

Yes, but that still won't achieve your goal of 100% of abuse victim claim value, for the very reason you mention. The TCC's valuation of ALL abuse claims was AT MINIMUM $102,716,619,500 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf And the BSA considered adequate compensation looks like: $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf Again, your avowed end goal is "fairness" But even by your own terms, 9-12B is not "fair", is it? 12 billion / 82,500 claims = $145,454 Toss in what BSA and the LCs will bring ($850 million / 82,500 claims = $10,303) and victims, on average, will get just over $155,000 each. And that is IF you can convince the insurers to pay out on claims they have no legal obligation to pay out on because of insurance caps and limits. So, do you believe $155,000 per victim is "fair"?

There is no evidence Stang and BSA struck any kind of deal. None. And your allusions to some proof you supposedly have of such an agreement, you cannot (or will not) reveal. Ok then.

You are right. That is incredibly unfair to those in non-window states. You've made the MORAL case for that. Now, tell me the LEGAL case for Removing or disregarding all SoLs for at least 58,000 claims How the bankruptcy judge can compel insurance companies to pay money they are not legally required under the terms of the insurance policies to pay OR to somehow conjure up from BSA or the LCs money they literally do not have ("blood out of a turnip"). How to address, other than ignoring, any other legal defense. And your proof this agreement/conspiracy between Stang and BSA is...what exactly? Transcript? Email? Letter?

Thank you. Now, how do you expect to get there within the framework of U.S. law? You've still never described any LEGAL mechanism to Remove or disregard all SoLs for at least 58,000 claims How to compel insurance companies to pay money they are not legally required under the terms of the insurance policies to pay OR to somehow conjure up from BSA or the LCs money they literally do not have ("blood out of a turnip"). How to address, other than ignoring, any other legal defense. It's nice to want all these things as "fairness". But you've still not articulated any way in which to accomplish this under state or federal law (or some combination thereof) 82,500 times. EDIT: You've made the MORAL case for all these three things, but until you can make a LEGAL case for all 3 of these items, all you've got is wishes and desires and that is all.

Do you have any proof whatsoever of these conversations? Again, as noted, it was opposed by at least 4 different entities/lawfirms, including the TCC which was supposedly part of this pillow-talk conspiracy.

They opposed the notification and solicitation for claimants in 2020. You know, the thing where Stang was supposedly conspiring with BSA about a nation-wide notification and solicitation?

I don't want any survivor to be "thrown under the bus." What I have said, repeatedly, is a bankruptcy judge cannot magically make all the SoLs go away. I've asked before and you've never answered, but I'll ask again: What is your desired end state here? The judge in facts waives that magic wand? That BSA's bankruptcy fails and we go back to status quo ante (circa January 2020) and lawsuits in state courts? A dead BSA? Some combo?

Just to be clear, when it came to the solicitation/notifications of victims process, the following groups/lawyers objected. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/816767_558.pdf The TCC: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/816767_558.pdf Hartford and other insurers: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/819481_651.pdf Century: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/819519_656.pdf Allianz insurance: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/819529_659.pdf And yet somehow AIS never objected. Huh. Weird. I can fine nothing in the record about Konsoff Law Firm PLLC objecting. Nothing about AVA. Nothing about Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck. They were notified of the hearing and were part of the case since the start. How strange that there was a conspiracy between Stang and BSA, but Stang a) in on record as opposing the BSA plan and b) not one member of AIS objected. Ah, well.