CynicalScouter

I just happen to think that while divine retribution in the hereafter is nice, it does not preclude people from seeking the redress of harms done to them in this world via the secular civil justice system. Call me goofy I guess.

Yes, this was the line pushed in February 2020. And in some councils as late as summer 2020. Since then, I will note that LCs are not singing that tune anymore because they know: BSA lied to them. I watched at NAM as the BSA leadership and their lawyers said, unequivocally, this would not impact LCs. My LC, to their infinite credit, knew better. They quickly indicated to our folks here that the LC would have to pay SOMETHING, they didn't know what specifically, but that we would have to pay SOMETHING. And now the LCs are getting 3 hour sessions with the TCC telling them the truth that BSA won't. No wonder BSA (who hosted the event) wouldn't allow for Q&A between the TCC and LCs.

I see. So, we should just shut down the entire civil justice system. No one should seek a civil remedy for a wrong that has been done to them because, in the end, God will take care of it? What?

TCC had mentioned in a Zoom that their long term vision is a clickable map showing Number of claims in a council (and if your particular claim is in that council). Total council assets Total council contributions to the settlement They are really, really putting the screws to the LCs at this point. $300 million is not going to cut it.

What I plan to ask my Key-3, if/when we have the next town hall Based on the BSA/Ad Hoc Committee formula, what is the expected amount that this council would have to pay in order to get a release/settlement? What is the TCC's estimated value of council assets and, related, what is TCC's estimate for how much it expects this council to produce to get a release/settlement? What properties, if any, are expected to be sold in order to meet the obligations for scenario #1 or #2, above?

My Council, who has honestly been I believe as open as they can be, has done three similar townhalls. When it comes to the bankruptcy, they made clear early on that there was a behind-the-scenes formula from BSA and/or the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils that was going to indicate what each LC had to pay into the Settlement. Of course, that was back when BSA was thinking it was going to be asking LCs for $300 million or $400 million in contributions. I suspect that formula has been nuked at this point. Someone asked how many claims had been filed against the council. Back in January we were told "can't give an exact number, but about average". Of course the list came out and...my Key-3 were telling the truth it was about the average for a council of our size. That said, other than "there's a formula and there's lots of lawyers talking a lot" the Key-3 told us they could not say anything more because a) they were told this was part of legal proceedings/negotiations and b) there really wasn't that much more they had.

Right. Why is BSA so deathly afraid of letting the LCs find out direct from TCC what TCC wants, what TCC is looking for, etc? BSA is running scared now.

My questions, in no particular order 1) Which councils sat in and who from the council was there? There is a giant bit of difference between the professional Scout Exec sitting in and, say, the volunteer Council President or General Counsel, for example. 2) While I believe they went through "in great detail" the AGGREGATED council finances, I wonder if/when TCC was willing to share the SPECIFIC council finances of 200+ councils. There's no way that was done in 2 hours. Did TCC have documents they would be willing to share? Did share? Nothing would please me more than to see THAT number and compare/contrast vs. what councils have in their IRS 990s, for example. NOT to say that the LCs are lying, but for example LCs might be valuing properties based on depreciated value (for tax purposes, entirely reasonable and legal) whereas TCC is valuing properties based on current resale value. 3) Why did BSA not want the TCC to directly communicate with the LCs? 4) Why did BSA not want the LCs to directly communicate with the TCC? Note: these are two SEPARATE questions with possibly to SEPARATE answers. I suspect I know the answer to one (BSA does not want TCC gaining direct access to LCs) and suspect the other (BSA does not want LCs reaching out to TCC to get real, direct answers without the BSA legal team's interpretations.) 5) What role, formal or informal, did the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils play? That's just my opening bid. Of course, BSA will never, ever tell us (even though they can) and TCC will not for various legal ethical reasons (e.g. possible breach of fiduciary duty to start spouting off to non-parties whose interests they don't represent)

The latest advancement newsletter is out, which is where I think this came from https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FINAL-PDF-of-Publisher-May-June-2021-5-3-21.pdf

Very, very interesting item that was in another thread but I think belongs here (as well). https://www.scouter.com/topic/32604-respondeat-superior/?do=findComment&comment=525220

Mine as well. Every year.

Not really. The point as to why BSA is being sued (successfully in many state courts I might add) is that they were NEGLIGENT. They didn't even bother to try and supervise these adults, background check them, etc. The modern BSA YP TRAINING is (likely) sufficient to demonstrate that if a scout is abused it was NOT due to the negligence of BSA, so long as it is enforced. The fact that that training was only 66% in compliance as recently as 2019, however, certainly shows BSA remained negligent up until that point. I guess it all depends on if you value keeping young people safe from sexual abuse. If all you do is throw your hands up and say "It's too hard to stop the abusers from coming in! That might take some effort our part!" then that's a shame.

And courts have held that for these purposes volunteers of ANY organization (such as BSA) are considered "employees" and that respondeat superior applies see Cordts v. Boy Scouts of America, 252 Cal.Rptr. 629 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 1988) and M.V. v. Gulf Ridge Council of Boy Scouts, 529 So.2d 1248 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1988), Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 38 (Tex. 1995),

I've already used the phrase Respondeat superior. Add in (in all seriousness) that BSA, the LC, or the CO was acting in loco parentis and we're all set.

The point in which no abuse occurs due to BSA's negligence. That. That's the adequate level.

They didn't. And juries around the nation have agreed with that assessment. Therefore, BSA shouldn't be held accountable for its negligence because it can never 100% fully stop all abuse, ever? Wha? No, I expect that when they act negligently they are held accountable. Pretty simple really. No one is asking for perfect. No one. Nice straw-man. You argument boils down to "because we can never, ever stop ALL bad things from happening, BSA should get a pass for 84,000 instances of sexual abuse." Uh, no.

I would add that There is a coordinated effort among at least some lawfirms or parties to send letters to the judge in the case. There are references in some of the letters to an April 27 email from some group (TCC? Coalition? Abused in Scouting?) to send letters to the judge describing their abuse. Under the judge's standing order, the names of those abused, those alleged to have committed the abuse, and other details are being redacted. Those letters started to appear on the court's docket, in earnest, starting this week.

Juries throughout the country already disagree with you. EDIT: If you know anything about law you know about respondeat superior: the corporation is responsible for the bad actions of its agents. That means BSA (and LCs and COs) negligently allowed those scouts to be abused by leaders they failed to properly supervise, so now they have to pay.

No, what will happen is that The BSA plans (global, toggle, whatever) will be a) voted on by the sexual abuse victims and rejected OR b) will be so opposed by TCC/FCR/Coalition that the judge simply does not send the plan out for a vote because she knows it will never be approved. BSA's right to come up with its own reorg plan will be deemed forfeit and the "Exclusivity period" will end. This may happen sooner rather than later. The TCC along with the FCR and Coalition or some combination will come up with their own reorganization plan that is approved by the court. That TCC/FCR/Coalition plan will then go to the sexual abuse victims who will approve it. BSA emerges from bankruptcy under the TCC/FCR/Coalition plan.

Again, I keep repeating this over and over maybe it will get through. TCC cannot force liquidation. TCC cannot ask for liquidation. TCC cannot achieve liquidation. The maximum amount for the claimants in a Chapter 7 must ALSO be balanced against a plan that allows the entity to survive. So if TCC came to the court with a plan that said "BSA is valued at $1.4 billion, we want $1.399 billion" the court is going to reject that because it leaves BSA with NOTHING upon which to reorganize and survive.

Again, over and over with the same line. BSA is NOT being sued for failure to report. BSA is NOT having claims against it for failure to report. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FAILURE TO REPORT THE ABUSE The claims are, in short, and as I've already linked to or posted at least a DOZEN times already. Negligence/Duty of reasonable care - BSA had an obligation to look after these kids and not let them be harmed. Negligence in Supervision - the abusive leader was an "agent of [Boy Scouts] was under [Boy Scouts] direct supervision, and control" using BSA methods, uniforms, instruction, etc. Negligence in Retention - the abusive leader was not shoved out the door fast enough Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts failed to do enough of a background check to detect the abuser's tendencies and nevertheless held the abusive leader out as a "competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor." Even if BSA had reported the abuse and the abuser had been convicted, that would have NO legal bearing on the claims against for negligence BSA. NONE.

Really? Where? I haven't seen them post on the boards here. Who are they? What I see are some people here who are aware that The states changed civil statutes of limitations, meaning that Claims against BSA National (and LCs and COs) for allowing thousands of scouts to be secually abused through the negligence have been filed and At least 900 lawsuits are already filed and pending against BSA/LCs/COs with more to follow, therefore There is literally no way BSA/LCs/COs are going to avoid having to pay out and that The only real debate is "How much and when" at this point. But like I said, if you've seen people posting that "simply want the BSA Corporate to somehow take total responsibility for a societal sickness for which nobody has a cure" please point them out in the future. Thanks.

Except, if you read, they aren't asking for $102 B from the liquidation of BSA and the LCs Nowhere, let me repeat, NOWHERE in that document do they call for that. They don't use the word. They don't even reference Chapter 7 They aren't stupid. They KNOW the BSA and the LCs don't have $102 B. AT BEST (and this is AT BEST) BSA has $1.4 B and the LCs $4-5 B (and that is with full, complete liquidation). What they said was this: TCC estimated all claims at $102 B CONSERVATIVELY. For example, rather than treating 5 occurrences of the same sexual abuse as 5 claims, they are treating it as 1. That's really, really conservative. Up until that point, BSA had NOT offered their own estimate, so TCC offered their own estimate. In the REVISED reorganization plan, BSA came out with its number. TCC is not asking for BSA and/or the LCs to come up with $102 B. EVERYONE understood and understands the bulk of this will be paid by insurance. TCC was saying that BSA can do a LOT better than its initial offer of what amounted to ~$300 million. It doesn't have to be $102 B, but it can't be that low, either. Clearer for you now? Again, NO ONE (other than Kosnoff) is talking about the liquidation of BSA.

So what? Again, that does NOT mean that their claims will be approved by the settlement trustee. And this is where I 100% completely agree with the insurance companies motion(s) for limited discovery. Let's have 1000 randomly selected claims reviewed for supporting documents and evidence and 100 claimants subject to deposition BOTH of these things will happen eventually (if we get to a settlement, the claimants will have to provide supporting material to the settlement trustee). Why not now? If it can be show that of the, for example, 100 claimants randomly selected something like 90 have valid claims (sufficient evidence, not timebarred, etc.) or 900/1000 then BSA and insurers know exactly how much they have to pay. Since November, in that sense, all about math. How much (and when).

Again, where are you getting this from? As has been pointed out over and over, this is a Chapter 11 reorganization. Not a Chapter 7 liquidation. There will be no "total loss of the BSA" at the end of this process.