CynicalScouter

Of the 81 listed jobs, 58 are District Executives/District Associates.

If he is engaged in sexual activity at a scout event, or even trying, call 844-SCOUTS1 (844-726-8871) or email scouts1st@scouting.org immediately. EDIT: I cannot stress this enough. As you rightly point out, it is stuff like THIS (good old boys/girls club letting people get away with stuff) that got BSA in the mess it is in now.

Exactly. This was an INSTITUTIONAL failing. BSA knew it had major problems with sexual abuse for decades, hid it, and did not admit it until forced to release the IVF files.

Ok, so a follow up. The latest is from New Jersey. I am NOT going to link to the complaint because the plaintiff/abuse victim is named (he is suing under his real name, not "John Doe") and I am not about to name him. That said, the NJ case is precisely the kind of lawsuit BSA, LCs, and COs are facing and why they are facing it. The "Defendants" are BSA National and two local councils in New Jersey where this unit operated/this scout was abused. So, right off the bat. Why is BSA and the LC being sued? Because they were operating the BSA program through the Troop. BSA and the LC did not properly review this abuser when he was "hired" (and for legal purposes signing on as a volunteer is "hiring). BSA and the LC did not properly review this abuser when he was "recruited" . BSA and the LC did not properly supervise this abuser when he was serving as a leader/volunteer abusing scouts. BSA and the LC are on the hook because they own this mess (they chartered the Troop). And BSA and the LCs are on the hook because they own this mess, part 2 (they chartered the Troop). BSA and the LCs were in charge of the program and recklessly disregarded scout safety. Everything I said above in the first post: BSA and the LCs were negligent in how they hired, trained, retained, and supervised the abuser, plus other things. and So, there you have it. An understanding of what is going on here. This has NOTHING to do with not reporting to police. It is about BSA National, LCs, and COs (although the CO isn't named here, it may be because the scout doesn't know who that was, there are "John Doe" defendants")

Update: Number of lawsuits pending against BSA, LCs, and COs due to sexual abuse = 902. This is as of April 14, 2021. The number will no doubt be skyrocketing due to upcoming deadlines.

That's actually not true. Where the abuser is still alive, they are in fact named as defendants in these cases. So, your facts are just wrong. Yep. Because they failed to do what they were supposed to do or negligent in the way they did it. And because the state legislature(s) allowed the statute of limitations to be reopened on such cases. And no, you are not being sued. BSA is being sued. The COs are being sued. You are not a named defendant in any of these cases UNLESS you were an abuser.

Exactly. This is what I still cannot fathom and that people have been told over and over again. @Owls_are_cool: i know we've told you this before. The point of the claims is that EVEN IF the police were notified and EVEN IF the abuser was found guilty, that does NOT absolve or release BSA, the Local Councils, or the CO (depending on the particular facts of the case) from civil claims for allowing the abuse to happen in the first place. Some states called it duty to care (explicit or implied or both). Some will wrap this into negligence in hiring/retention/supervision. I've also seen (California comes to mind) negligence in training. Etc.

So what? I've said this over and over: the lawsuits are NOT about failure to report the abuse. They are about Negligence/Duty of reasonable care - BSA (and COs) 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. They were also suppose to be under the review and supervision of the CO. 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 and the COs 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 the BSA and COs had reported to the police, they are STILL liable for the above.

Yeah, this is the part where you find the nearest door and shove the parent out it. Just what you described violates, easily, 3 different Guide to Safe Scouting/Youth Protection provisions. Oh, and since he is a volunteer? Scouter Code of Conduct as well. And that is precisely how you need to address it to your Scout Executive (if the DE didn't respond before, skip the DE). Sexual harassment is a no. SEXUAL ACTIVITY during ANY scouting event is a big, giant, glaring, red NO.

It already expired in part So, TCC/FCR/Coalition COULD file a reorg plan TODAY if they want, but they couldn't possibly send it out for a vote until May 18. Which is why I previously indicated that I expect to see a plan get filed, if not for formal consideration then as a veiled threat attached to some other pleading or document: BSA, get with the program or we will cram this down your throat/file the following for formal consideration.

They can exit Chapter 7 without having a reorg plan. Or, as I said, they'll be forced to accept the TCC/FCR/Coalition plan.

I don't see a universe in which BSA voluntarily goes into Chapter 7, and it cannot (as a not-for-profit) be forced into it. I CAN, however, see a situation where TCC/Coalition/FCR or some combination come up with their reorganization plan and force BSA to accept it. Remember: the ONLY reason they haven't done so is the BSA still has (for now) exclusive rights to submit a plan.

People tend to think of all lawyers as sharks looking for blood/money. They aren't. Most lawyers I know and have worked with for decades just want to push to get something that approximates justice with the minimum amount of effort (in terms of time and treasure wasted). If that means mediation, great. If that means negotiation, great. If that means litigation in a courtroom, that's something of a "failure." At that point you want fighters, not negotiators. As much as I respect the TCC lawyers, they are to my way of thinking negotiators. The lawyers the Coalition just brought in are fighters. They are are here to win and they are being paid the big bucks to do so. This just sends a clear/clearer message that negotiations are over, as if the response they filed or the multiple discovery demands didn't get that message across, I would not be shocked to see the Coalition formally withdraw from mediation; they could stick around just pro forma but not really engage.

That's exactly right, which is why many/most of the lawsuits filed list 1) BSA National 2) The Local Council 3) The CO 4) The Abuser (if still alive)

Yes, that's why the main civil causes of action against BSA and the COs are 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. And the COs were responsible for oversight of the unit and its leaders. Negligence in Retention - the abusive leader was not shoved out the door fast enough by the CO. Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts (and the CO) 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." Negligent hiring is only 1 of the 3.

This is the official listing of AGE-APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES FOR SCOUTING ACTIVITIES https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/pdf/680-685.pdf Simply attending a Scouts, BSA troop meeting is by no means a violation of anything. As for the specific activity, it depends on what. Were they using bow saws? Then no, the Bear shouldn't have been using a bow saw. Were they using knives? Then the Bear was OK (if they had Whittling Chip). Were they doing knots and lashings? Then no problem. Etc.

I also wonder if this "non-Debtor third party" is directional. In other words, the abuse claims are against National and, separately, the Councils. Let's use an example from the above: Albany Auto Service The claim was that the LOCAL COUNCIL owned camp truck needed to be serviced. Why this person then filed against NATIONAL isn't clear, but the debt would be the LCs and have to be paid by LC assets. But that is not the issue in the abuse cases. The issue here is whether a claim against NATIONAL AND THE LC (jointly AND separately) can be paid for out of LC assets and whether, for these purposes, LC assets can be used to satisfy NATIONAL debts/abuse claims.

That's been the insurance companies position all along: 1) BSA withheld information when they entered into the policies, voiding them 2) BSA withheld information during the duration of the policies, voiding them 3) Insurance does not cover the criminal actions of the insured, and what BSA and its leaders did was criminal.

TCC making more discovery demands. The first set was to BSA, Century, and Hartford "in Connection with Estimation Proceedings" I discussed here The second set went out Sunday night and appears targeted at BSA only regarding BSA's Plan Solicitation Procedures. As I said, looks like negotiations are just completely over at this point. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/27dce467-73db-44d2-a382-bbb5bc619d87_2695.pdf

At that level, literally a rounding error.

Prior to the bankruptcy, this is exactly what happened. BSA asked insurers to cover certain prior lawsuits involving abuse. The insurers told BSA to stuff it and that the policies were void because BSA wasn't forthcoming. BSA sued in state court in Texas to force the payments. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/boy-scouts-of-america-battle-insurers-over-coverage-for-sex-abuse-scandal-119599.aspx That suit got stayed/paused as part of the bankruptcy.

It's time for everyone's favorite game: let's kick the can further down the road. The judge will NOT be hearing discussion on April 29 on TCC/FCR's motion to end BSA's exclusive period and allow TCC/FCR (or anyone else I guess) to file a counter to BSA's reorg plan 2.0. That means the earliest we could even see a discussion about an alternate reorg plan is late May. Now, what I hope is that this April 29 hearing was cancelled/can kicked down the road to May because TCC/FCR is about to come out with their own reorg plan. Why do I think this? Based on three things 1) TCC has already laid out the rough outlines of its reorg plan when it filed its objections to BSA's motion to extend the exclusivity period. That outline = $102 billion. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf 2) Their absolute scorching objection to the $650 million Hartford sweetheart deal BSA made alluded to a plan in the works. Even if they cannot officially file the plan as an alternative, I bet they CAN file a draft copy as an attachment to the next pleading. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/887735_2672.pdf 3) The discovery demands TCC just filed against BSA, Century, and Hartford. That is an aggressive posture.

Right, so the TCC knows (or can pretty much guess) whether $650 million from Hartford is good/best reasonable offer or, as I suspect, a sweatheart deal BSA is cutting to get out of bankruptcy ASAP.

I am in complete and total agreement with the idea that the CO "owns" the unit with one big caveat that I've seen come up: The CO "owns" the unit and may run it anyway it wants in compliance with BSA rules. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. There was a pack whose CO was a Lutheran Church. Webelos Adventure Duty to God and You requires that you complete Requirement #1 (Discuss with your parent, guardian, den leader, or other caring adult what it means to do your duty to God. Tell how you do your duty to God in your daily life.) AND an additional requirement from a list of 3. One option, and I want to emphasize it was an OPTION was "Earn the religious emblem of your faith that is appropriate for your age, if you have not done so already." The new pack committee chair (who sat on the Church's board) insisted that OPTION was MANDATORY in order to earn Duty to God and You AND that the scouts partake in the PRAY program in order to do it. This raised two major concerns: Several non-Lutheran scouts were being forced to use the PRAY program when they belonged to other denominations. This was adding a requirement in violation of Guide to Advancement by converting an OPTIONAL requirement into a MANDATORY one. Well there was the push/pull about who owns the unit and how since this was the church's unit they could and would do this. Eventually the pastor as IH got dragged in and as soon as he saw it completely shut it down, if for no other reason than item #1 and what was perceived as forced imposition of a particular religion/Christian denomination. Again, I am all in favor of COs "owning" units, and I wish more were engaged than they are. But that also does not give them carte blanche to simply make up rules as the go along.

Three cheers for this point. CO shopping is just another word for "finding someone to let us get away with stuff and stay out of our way." COs refusing to exercise at least a modicum of control and/or oversight is at least a partial reason for the sexual abuse scandals. Of course now COs are starting to overreact and throw units out when what should have happened all along was a happy medium.