CynicalScouter

But there's no evidence of that either. The BSA reorg website doesn't mention AIS. None of their materials do. At all. Unless the accusation is that BSA and the LCs collected confidential claims information or similar data and then directed that information to AIS. Again, if so that's a bankruptcy collusion between debtor and creditor-attorneys.

To be clear: I am not talking about what claims and assertions AIS or its claims aggregators made. They could have been lying like rugs. What I am saying is that you @Gilwell_1919 asserted BSA and the LCs were "directing those complaints/claims over to the Abused In Scouting Coalition." Thus far there's still not one bit of evidence and if there was (like a slide from an SE) that said as such it would either be a) a mistake on the part of the SE b) "conjecture" (to use your word) or c) evidence of a bankruptcy claims collusion between debtor and claimant-attorneys.

Except that was literally what you claimed originally.

So, again, absolutely nothing from BSA or the LC directing people to AIS, which was your original claim and for which you STILL have no provided any evidence or proof and what you have says the exact opposite. I believe a Scout is Honest, and I think you are making an Honest mistake or misunderstanding here OR were fed bad information by your SE. What I and others are telling you here is that it would be illegal for BSA to enter into any kind of agreement to direct claimants/creditors to a particular law firm. I suspect your SE simply misspoke or AIS was saying things that were not true, but it was NOT BSA that did it.

That's my question or next question as well. This sounds like a Scout Executive who didn't know what he/she was talking about directing victims/claimants to a particular law firm/AIS to file claims against BSA/the LC. That means a debtor, through an employee/officer/agent, was directing claimants to a particular law firm. That will go before the judge in a red-hot heartbeat since we know this forum is monitored. I've seen people get disbarred for directing clients to a particular friendly lawyer to play lets-make-a-deal with.

Your SE was wrong and if that slide exists people are going to prison and/or being disbarred. BSA cannot colluded with its creditors or claimants to direct people to a particular lawfirm. Be very careful here because again we know this forum is monitored by law firms and Kosnoff and the TCC. I want you to be aware that if what you are saying is true and your Scout Executive told claimants to go to a particular lawfirm or AIS in general, this will (likely) be brought up before the bankruptcy court.

Nowhere does any of that mention AIS. Your claims was that BSA was directing claimants to AIS. That photo doesn't show that. Neither does the AIS professional employment agreement. Again, that's not what you claimed. You claimed that BSA/National had said that. I'm not asking what AIS said, I am asking what BSA said. And YOU said, quite clearly, that BSA had directed people to AIS. And I, and others, are here to tell you that is 100% not true. BSA never, ever directed anyone to AIS. Ever. If they had, people start going to prison. And thus far you still have not provided a single thing to indicate BSA has done so. So I'll ask again: Show me something from or by BSA that directs people to AIS or even mentions AIS. This is how misinformation and disinformation happen.

Yep. If BSA National or local councils were doing what @Gilwell_1919 claims (that as part of the bankruptcy proceeding against BSA that BSA was directing claimants to a particular law firm or set of law firms/AIS to file claims/suits against BSA) that gets people in prison or at the very least contempt of court proceedings and disbarment. Again, @Gilwell_1919: post the slide or a photo of a slide that says "AIS" or "Abused in Scouting".

Post please. Thanks. Even just a picture. Again: if what you are saying is true, and BSA directed claimants to particular LAW FIRMS (not the court) to file a claim against BSA, that is potentially criminal collusion in a bankruptcy proceeding. So be very, very careful here when you claim that BSA directed claimants to AIS because, again, I am claiming right now that remains misinformation or disinformation. Post the slide or a photo of a slide that said "AIS".

This is a 1926 Troop Charter Renewal http://www.troop17bsa.com/uploads/4/5/8/4/4584404/1926.pdf "Mr. [INSERT NAME] has been selected by us as Scoutmaster, and we recommend that he be commissioned as such. To our personal knowledge he is of good character and qualified to act as a leader of boys in carrying out the Scout program."

FYI: Here's an annual troop charter from May 1953-1954. APPLICATION OF INSTITUTION The [Institution Name] ADDRESS [Institution Address] HEREBY MAKES APPLICATION FOR THIS ANNUAL TROOP CHARTER AND APPROVES THE TROOP OFFICIALS WHOSE SIGNATURES APPEAR BELOW DATE 5/26/53 SIGNED [EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF INSTITUTION, ORGANIZATION, OR GROUP] TITLE [Within the Institution] Once upon a time the two were the same. The split was I think in the 1950s?

My understanding is from the start/from the earliest days of scouting. In the original, the Institutional Representative (IR) signed. This evolved into Scouting Coordinator (SC) which evolved into today's Charter Organization Representative (COR). Today, the old IR is somewhat split in two: Institutional Head (IH) and Chartered Organization Rep (COR).

That may have been what they were told, but they also signed documents that said the opposite AND the CORs were signing off on the scout leaders. That a CO failed to do even a minimum of due diligence on what they were signing? Shame on BSA/LCs, but shame on the CO/CORs for signing things they didn't bother to read.

Ok, this is troubling. A lawyer in NJ is writing as if the bankruptcy deal has been finalized and writing/using verb tenses to suggest that this is a done deal. What Does Boy Scouts Abuse Settlement Approval Mean for New Jersey Victims? Emphasis mine. No. No, no, no, no. NO!

I hate to cross-post (and mods sorry but I believe it relevant) but the New England Conference of Methodist Churches released not only a warning letter to all churches to drop/not recharter past December 31 BUT also included a letter from their lawyers. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:9c1edbba-985f-45eb-99d3-d7fec38f3a2f#pageNum=1 The author is the "chancellor". For those not familiar with the Methodists, the chancellor is (almost) always a retired judge or a lawyer appointed by the bishop as a combination general counsel/legal advisor/senior advisor. In this case, the Chancellor is 30 year civil litigator. Anyway, as for the bankruptcy, it gives insight into the bankruptcy case and mediation/negotiations here and gets at the point of loose language, namely, that the COs going back DECADES (certainly before 1976 when BSA says COs started to get covered) thought and were told they were covered by BSA but now BSA is refusing/denying such coverage ever existed and that the insurance coverage BSA did get wasn't enough. One thing I also want to point out, and this is something that I've seen in similar letters, is that the Methodist churches are using language to suggest it was BSA that selected the leaders. https://www.neumc.org/newsdetail/15389972 Emphasis in original. In other words, this gets back at the bigger/broader point. So many COs simply looked at charters as "we signed the document once a year, that was all" and utterly, completely and utterly failed to realize that as COs they were responsible for selection (and oversight) of leaders. This is yet again part and parcel of why the entire CO framework was a failure and what I've said in the past is the biggest open secret in Scouting: that the idea that COs are doing ANY kind of review or oversight or ANYTHING regarding their units is absurd. So, the legal argument for no Methodist church liability is going to be "We never selected the abusive leaders, BSA did or the unit did, we just signed paperwork."

The New England Conference not only sent a letter/posted but ALSO included a copy of the legal advise letter they got. https://www.neumc.org/newsdetail/15389972 Letter: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:9c1edbba-985f-45eb-99d3-d7fec38f3a2f

That is not at all what happened. What a load of misinformation. BSA never directed people to Abused in Scouting. BSA, per an order of the bankruptcy court, asked in 2020 (not 2019) for all claimants to file a claim with the bankruptcy court, something ALL bankruptcies require. They were also required, per the court's order, to launch an ad campaign to that effect. Absolutely NONE of which had to do with AIS. Simultaneously, and COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of this, AIS launched its OWN ad campaign to get people to file claims THROUGH THEM. Again, BSA had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Latest statements from Baltimore-Washington: https://www.bwcumc.org/news-and-views/bsa-bankruptcy-affects-united-methodist-congregations/ Quoting the Bishop "The Baltimore-Washington Conference is working closely with the denominational leadership team to appropriately address this situation. I strongly advise congregations to heed the advice of the denomination with respect to existing BSA charter agreements. Please do one of the following: Agree to extend an expiring charter through December 31, rather than renew that charter; Place an expiring charter with a facilities use agreement that expires on December 31; or Terminate an existing charter and replace it with a facilities use agreement that expires on December 31. All of those options allow more time to see how the bankruptcy will impact United Methodist congregations.

The point is pain and suffering damages are part of the US tort system going back to the UK/British system we borrowed/copied our legal system from. To argue now that "you cannot quantify pain, therefore sexual abuse victims get NOTHING" isn't realistic. Moreover, as part of the RSA, the TCC/FCR/Coalition and BSA are all on record as having agreed to an abuse matrix. I won't post it directly, but suffice to say it is exists and was agreed to by the major parties creditors and debtors.

You don't. Contact your Scouting professional. BSA's official stance and policy is you do NOT want to play guessing games and the single, sole source for this information is a scouting professional. As SOON as you find yourself with a transgendered scout, you MUST contact the professional. That said, and this is NOT advice and NOT meant to contradict BSA policy, but what I have been told (again this is rank rumor so PLEASE contact your professional given the legal and other ramifications of this) is that a scout will be treated as they are identified on their application. There literally is no way in the recharter system to change genders. Thus if a child wishes to change how they self-identify they will need to do a new application. It may (let me repeat MAY) be possible for your Council Registrar to do it, but I know in my Council she wants a new application. They want a paper trail on this. And remember: if there is a gender self-identification change, that is going to mean having to change troops since there are no co-ed troops.

Century/Chubb have now responded to the demands. They offer what amount to three reasons why the TCC/FCR/Coalition shouldn't get the documents. 1) The discovery requests were asked as part of other motions that have since been withdrawn or rendered moot. The requests were made in the context of the Second Amended Plan or and the Estimation Motion. We are up to the FOURTH Amended Plan and the Estimation Motion was withdrawn as part of the RSA. 2) This is an (improper) attempt to use the discovery process to determine total liability and/or how much Chubb/Century were willing to pay rather than a legitimate discovery purpose 3) TCC/FCR/Coalition waited too long. ("The Claimants did not pursue their now moot discovery about Century’s financial condition following their entry into the RSA or in the run-up to the hearing on the RSA. The Coalition’s counsel filed its second letter with the Court on the Friday (July 30) after the RSA motion was to be heard but coincidentally right before the mediation scheduled for the following week." https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7213b4ff-b455-458e-9242-faa14c2c9563_6120.pdf Item's #1 is really, really ticky tacky: Yes the original discovery demands were in the context of Plan 2.0. They are STILL relevant to Plan 4.0. The TCC/FCR/Coalition can fix this in a split second by simply re-submitting the exact same discovery demand NOW. This is a pure stall. #2 has a point. It's one thing to ask "What are your current assets?" The way the Coalition phrased it, however, was "Identify the maximum amount that Century can pay for any Century Settlement.” This is basically asking Century and Chubb to admit the liability and how much they are liable for (or to set the maximums at any rate). #3 is crud. This was and is a fast moving case and the disclosure hearing is coming up fast. It isn't like they waited months. Oh and you better believe the insurance companies want to keep the focus on Kosnoff. I am telling you, there are better than 50/50 odds that given Kosnoff has now said, in a statement under the penalties of perjury, that his signature was misused to sign claims, the insurance companies will keep Kosnoff as the center of attention at any future hearings. Of course, Kosnoff will love that.

I never doubted it. What I had a hard time thinking of was to what desperate straits they'd take it. I've been told the OA fund AND OA Endowment was raided/forced loan in order to keep the lights on. They've taken from the main BSA endowment. I for one NEVER doubted they'd be out of cash. My biggest concern with the role of national committees is that a) it is literally impossible to see who are even members b) how they were selected (handpicked?) and c) how to express our concerns and to whom. But this is veering off the bankruptcy topic and, per mod policy, I won't veer any further than that.

Oh absolutely, I'm not enough of a mucky mucky to know much of anything. And if BSA as demonstrated one thing over the years it is that it absolutely will not tell its unit level leaders a darn thing about anything. Sure my information incomplete. And guess whose fault that is? The high and mighty folks in the NEC and NEB, not mention often Council-level who earnestly believe that the unit-level leaders are either too stupid or too something else to be properly informed of anything. Kosnoff is quoting me now? Bully. I'm got no enormous love for Councils and BSA. My own Council had such rank corruption that the SE lost both our camp AND scout office, was (allegedly) directly pocketing money, etc. The Council board, again put there for their donations and wallets and not their actual oversight, was dumbfounded. My council was given 30 days to fold, instead unit-level leaders rallied and saved this council. But we remain without a camp and renting a scout office. It will take decades to recover. And National, who under the terms of its own Charter and Bylaws are suppose to have access to the council finances and engage in oversight, did precisely nothing. So if I am a bit (gasp) cynical about council and council boards, I've earned the right to be.

I want to pull this from another related thread from a letter by the Iowa Methodist Bishop Past a certain point I have to think that this is about both protecting Methodist churches AND applying as much leverage/pressure as they can on BSA to come to an agreement ASAP. I'm blushing.

I think part of the issue is that for many council boards it is simply a buy-a-seat proposition. It is entirely a fundraising endeavor. The board members themselves are often completely unaware that they are suppose to have, you know, actual engagement. Maybe, maybe the Council President will have some inkling, but that's it. For the rest, a council board seat is like an honorary position/thank you for your donations (and keep them coming). I would say on my board 1/2 of the people present are there for their wallets first and their scouting insights second. The other have scouting insights first, money second.