CynicalScouter

Yep. And while BSA National may NOT be at fault in all 84,000 claims, they will be found at fault in a great many. Enough that they knew they had to file for bankruptcy to get ahead of the curve. And THAT was when they suspected there were "only" about 10,000 abuse cases. BSA is going to pay. So are the LCs. So are a good many COs. The question is not if anymore. It is when, and how much.

Nope. As I said: you don't want to pay the victims, leave. There's no plan C.

In all 84,000 cases? Can't for all 84,000. That's what the judge (well, more likely the Settlement Claims Trustee) will decide on a case by case basis. In the cases already filed and that BSA lost? Sure. Courts have already found BSA liable, most famously in the Oregon case. Jury verdict hits Boy Scouts with $18.5 million in punitive damages BSA is going to pay. The only question is how much, and when. Again, no one is talking about "killing" BSA other than Kosnoff. Nice straw-man. But a "noble organization" that let 84,000 children be sexually abused maybe isn't so noble. A "noble organization" who we now know KEPT THE ABUSE SECRET and directed people to remain silent maybe isn't so noble. We have BSA executives admitting IN WRITING as early as 1965 that they kept the abuse secret "to save the name of Scouting." That's a "noble" organization? Really? EDIT: How about this from 1972? There's that "noble" organization.

There's already been dozens of cases in which BSA has lost on this claim, the most famous of which was the case in Oregon in 2010. I spelled it all out here. 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." As for the 84,000 claims, the idea is that each will be reviewed by the Settlement Trustee to determine negligence in each instance/claim.

Nice. Absolute none of which has to do with a) corporate liability for b) corporate negligence, which is what is the issue in the BSA cases.

Talk about drama. Other than the small cadre of Kosnoff-types, NO ONE (not the TCC, not the FCR, not even the Coalition) is talking about "destroying" BSA or scouting. NO ONE. That's just a straw-man. This is a Chapter 11, not a Chapter 7, proceeding. What is being discussed is how to come up with a financial plan for BSA (toggle plan) or BSA and the LCs (Global settlement) that Compensates the abuse victims to the maximum amount possible (TCC's sole mission) and Results in BSA (or BSA and the LCs) survival. The real debate is what is the "maximum amount possible." BSA seems to be thinking a number at or near $1 billion. TCC is talking more, but has not set out a firm number. NO ONE (again other that Kosnoff) is talking liquidation. Not one is talking about wanting BSA "destroyed". In fact, even if the TCC wanted BSA "destroyed" they cannot because a) a not for profit cannot be forced into Chapter 7 and b) whatever reorganization plan is developed HAS to convince the judge that it will result in BSA's survival (or BSA and the LCs in the global plan). So please, stop with the "BSA destroyed" or "Scouting destroyed" motif. It is a tiresome straw-man.

We are going round and round, in the end some facts need to be faced. If you are/were a Catholic in one of the dioceses that went through bankruptcy over sexual abuse, you'll recognize what I am about to say. (Some) of your money will be paid to victims of sexual abuse. That's a given. You can scream and wail that it was not YOUR fault, and that you wanted YOUR donations to go to the Church. But... That's not how corporations work. Incorporated entities get certain benefits in terms of being able to keep and maintain assets. It also means that the incorporated entity has to pay the corporation's debts. In a for-profit, that means shareholders or bondholders get stuck paying off bad debts due to corporate negligence (e.g. when Ford releases a defect car, it isn't John or Jane CEO who pays, the corporation pays). In a not-for-profit, that means donors, such as people who donated camps to councils, or money to National, or whatever. And thanks to civil statutes of limitations being extended, the corporate entity/entities involved will be paying lots for a long, long time. YOU are not personally liable for the money (unless you are an abuser). That's the nice part about #2 above. You can walk away anytime. Because the corporate entity, not you the donor, are liable. If you don't want your donations to go to the victims, leave. That's it! Your past donations are, as part of the assets of the corporation known as Boy Scouts of America, subject to the civil judgements and claims, but you are free to walk away and not have to pay a single more dime. That's it. At the end of the day, decide whether the cost of scouting is worth it anymore. If you absolutely insist none of your (future) money goes to the abuse fund, leave. Come back in a few years when the dust settles. Or don't.

I don't want BSA eliminated. I've got kids in the program. We love the program. Don't mistake me for the Kosnoff "burn it to the ground and sift through the ashes" type. Not exactly. BSA is the target because it acting with negligence regarding the sexual abuse AND has money. AND the statute of limitations were rolled back. Remember: this is NOT a situation where anyone can just file a claim and get money. The claims will be reviewed. Those in scouting who absolutely, positively do NOT want to have their money go to pay for BSA's debts are free to leave.

A number greater than $0, set by either the bankruptcy court and/or the claims settlement trustee. BSA is going to pay. If you don't want your personal money to go into such a fund, leave. It is that simple. This is like what the Catholic Church tried to do with its sexual abuse scandal. Oh no, can't take our money, it was donated. Yeah, that's not how corporate liability works. Pay, or leave. There is no plan C here. No one is MAKING you stay in scouting. If you leave scouting, you will not pay a dime. You are not a "member" of scouting. You are a) a donor b) a volunteer or c) both. As such, if you do not want to pay into the victims fund? Fine! Leave! No one is going to come after your personal assets or hunt you down or what not. Just a) stop donating and b) stop volunteering.

Fine. Then what is your alternative that will compensate the sexual abuse victims. What is the "win-win" here? Provide the list of everyone who should PERSONALLY pay. Here, I'll start 1) Abusers, if still alive. A given. 2) "the people directly responsible for the abuse and cover-up to pay". First most if not all are dead. Second, the way a corporation works is that an employee or officers PERSONAL assets are not subject to being seized except in extremely rare cases ("piercing the corporate veil") 3) No one else So, according to the @Owls_are_coolsexual abuse compensation plan, the 84,000 sexual abuse victims get 1) $0-a pittance 2) $0 3) $0 So, effectively nothing. The sexual abuse victims get nothing.

TCC has stated, in writing, 10% of all their fees will go to victims. They also issued a challenge to BSA's lawyers to do the same. BSA never responded.

Shhh! It's ok, because it is BSA! As someone pointed out during the debate on this bill - by enacting this you are ensuring ANY private entity (or at least ANY not for profit) can come in and demand equal time/equal access to the students

Oh I see, so victims are OK, but they are not suppose to hire a lawyer to represent them. Victims aren't vultures, they are just wrong to hire lawyers, because lawyers are vultures. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yep. As others have said, they firmly believe that because they volunteer for BSA, that means BSA should NEVER, EVER have to pay for its negligence if such a payment would raise fees on scouts 1 penny. It is us "scouts and scouters" vs. those sexual abuse victims, and us "scouts and scouters" are not going to do a darn thing. HINT: It isn't. It is scouts and scouters AND sexual abuse victims vs. a BSA that allowed this to happen in the first place. Sorry, letting BSA walk away from civil liability for abusing kids because...it works with kids.. is insane.

Yes. Don't want to focus on the sexual abuse victims. Let's just pretend they don't exist. Better yet, call them "vultures". https://www.scouter.com/topic/32548-how-far-do-the-legal-vultures-go-a-couple-of-to-me-today-foolish-over-reaches/ https://www.scouter.com/topic/32570-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/?do=findComment&comment=524615 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32570-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/?do=findComment&comment=524566 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32570-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/?do=findComment&comment=524547 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32570-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/?do=findComment&comment=524524

It's both and all. The 900+ suits already filed name: 1) BSA National 2) Local Councils 3) COs 4) Individual abusers 5) Some combinations of the above. Very few (if any) of the suits are against ONLY BSA National, or ONLY the LC. Moreover, if the "franchisees" (LCs and COs) want to get the claimed against them waived, they need to start coughing up some money, ASAP.

Here's my next question for those who insist that the BSA should not have to pay a DIME to sexual abuse victims According to the preliminary list of abuse claims released earlier there were 18 claims in 2019 and 10 in 2020. If it can be shown in a court of law that BSA officials alive and well today in BSA HQ or at the local level (e.g. Scout Execs) through their negligence allowed those 28 scouts to be sexually abused, who should pay? Only the abuser? The BSA officials out of their own, personal funds? BSA National? Again, this absurd notion that because BSA is a not for profit, therefore it cannot be held civilly liable is just asking, nay begging, for trouble.

Sorry, but that is not how corporate malfeasance works. The corporate entity, BSA, gets certain benefits from being incorporated. It also takes on the burden of being held to all prior debts and civil claims (subject to statutes of limitations). So you believe that BSA the corporate entity should not have to pay one thin dime? You keep dodging the question, but I'll keep asking it. Answer is question first, if you can.

To clarify: it seems what you and others want is for BSA to not pay one thin dime more than has already been spent (and that that money never should have been spent in the first place) towards any settlement or civil judgment regarding sexual abuse of scouts. In other words: your definition of "win-win" is "BSA pays $0 as part of the abuse settlement and the sexual abuse victims are told to go rot" All because BSA is a not-for-profit that works with kids? Wha? That fact does NOT and should NOT make BSA immune from civil lawsuits regarding its negligence.

Much easier to focus on calling people liars and "vultures" or focusing on the lawyers than to have to confront the facts about this situation. THESE ARE VICTIMS IN THESE LETTERS. NOT "VULTURES". https://www.scouter.com/topic/32570-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/?do=findComment&comment=524615 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32570-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/?do=findComment&comment=524566 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32570-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/?do=findComment&comment=524547 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32570-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/?do=findComment&comment=524524

Then name the win-win, because it sure looks like "win-win" translates as "BSA pays NOTHING and sexual abuse victims are told to go rot." It's a real bummer that the entity involved is a not for profit rather than for-profit company, but this notion that because BSA is a not for profit working with kids it should be immune from civil liability (because any monetary judgment would "harm the children") is something I will never understand.

I just read the 20 letters filed this morning. One was about a man, then a little boy, abused. He had found a picture of himself when he was in his uniform (I'm guessing Cub) and sent it to the judge. He doesn't want it back now. He doesn't want the memory of being in that uniform and what happened to him when he was in it. The same things I saw in yesterday's letters were in today's. Depression. Shame. Guilt. This is NOT about money; one letter even says that while of course he wants some compensation this is about that "BSA needs to know the pain they allowed." Some version of the word "accountable" appears in almost all of them. One thing I am also seeing in most of these 20 letters? Anger at BSA "playing games". Again, these are VICTIMS. Not liars (maybe some are, but likely rare). Certainly not "vultures". I dare any of the BSA-can-do-no-wrong defenders to read even 5 of these letters. You won't, of course.

Here's what I want you to do. Right now. Go to to Omni Court Docket for the BSA bankruptcy. https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d&tagid=1153 Search the documents for the phrase "Letter Regarding Abuse" and read them. Most are heavily redacted, you want to know why? Because within those black bars are the details of the abuse and the abuser. Some go on for pages. Even beyond the black bars there are details enough: dates, locations, locations within locations (e.g. trailer in Camp ABC) This morning I just read through another 20 such letters filed in the last 24 hours. Then I want you to come back here, keep defending BSA. These people are NOT asking for their memories to be 100% accepted. They are being asked to be able to at LEAST have their claims reviewed (they say court, but it would be a claims administrator) and the opportunity to have their voices heard. Keep defending BSA. Keep talking about liars and "vultures".

Again, there is a GIANT difference in state legislative elections and presidential.

That's the point. There is this, I want to say absurd, notion I've seen and had people tell me that all you have to do is say you were abused and BSA is going to hand you a big bag of money, no questions asked. No details required. The way it is going to work is there will be two or three levels of vetting as I discuss here. Simply saying "I was abused, give me money." Won't work.